ALSO READAt NCLT, Tata Sons opposes SP Group's representation on board Ratan Tata, Venkat had no vested interests at AirAsia India: Tata counsel Tata Sons conversion to Pvt Ltd no act of oppression: Tata Counsel at NCLT Mistry's counsel failed to prove violation of law: Tata Sons to NCLT Ratan Tata, Cyrus Mistry differed over listing of Tata Sons
Tata Sons and Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) group’s counsel continued arguments on the rejoinders at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday. While SP group’s counsel questioned the process adopted by the Tata Sons’ board to remove Cyrus Mistry as the chairman, Tata’s counsel said the various documents the SP group counsel circulated during their rejoinder were irrelevant to the case.
Mistry’s removal as chairman did not abide by the Tata Sons’ charter that necessitated the formation of a selection committee, both for the appointment as well as removal of the chairman, SP’s counsel, Aryama Sundaram, said. To substantiate his argument, Sundaram submitted the minutes of the July 3 board meeting that clearly noted that the understanding of the board was that such a committee would be necessary for appointment and removal of a chairman — in just the same manner as drafted in the Articles. The concept of a selection committee was introduced by an amendment in the Articles of Association in 2000.