NCLAT order restoring Mistry as Chairman to be operational in 4 weeks, Tata gets time to challenge

Keeping in mind the smooth functioning of the Tata Sons Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday suspended the part of the judgment which relates to replacement of the present executive chairman and reinstatement of Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as Executive Chairman for a period of four weeks.

The tribunal said the restoration order will be operational only after four weeks, the time allowed to Tatas to file an appeal.

The part of the judgement was suspended by the Tribunal after Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the company, prayed for it.

"After the judgment was pronounced, Abhishek Manu Singhvi learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the company prays for the suspension of the part of the judgment by which it has been ordered to replace the Executive Chairman and to reinstate Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as Executive Chairman and Director of the 'Tata Sons Limited'," the tribunal order stated.

The order said that the rest of the judgment and directions including the direction to reinstate Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as Director of the Company and Directors of three Tata Compes will be complied to.

Earlier today, the NCLAT restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of the Tata Group and held that the appointment of N Chandrasekaran was illegal.

The Mumbai bench of the NCLT had dismissed the petitions filed by the two investment firms Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corp challenging Mistry's removal.

Later, Mistry had also personally approached the NCLAT over the NCLT order.

Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position in October 2016. He had taken over as the chairman in December 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement.

The Mistry camp had challenged the July 9 order of the Mumbai bench of the NCLT which dismissed the pleas against his removal as Tata Sons chairman, as also the allegations of rampant misconduct on part of Ratan Tata and the company's board.

A special bench of the tribunal had held that the board of directors at Tata Sons was 'competent' to remove the executive chairperson of the company.

The NCLT bench had also said that Mistry was ousted as chairman because the Tata Sons' Board and its majority shareholders had 'lost confidence in him.'

Two months after his removal, Mistry's family-run firms approached the NCLT as minority shareholders, against Tata Sons, Ratan Tata and some other board members.

Mistry in his pleas primarily argued that his removal was not in accordance with the Compes Act and that there was rampant mismanagement of affairs across Tata Sons.

( With inputs from ANI )