Tata-Mistry case: SC to hear review plea filed by Cyrus Investments

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear in open court a review plea filed by Cyrus Investments Limited against its order setting aside appellate tribunal NCLAT's order which had restored Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the Tata group.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana, Justice A S Bopanna, and Justice V Ramasubramanian said the petitions will be heard in open court on March 9.

Applications seeking exemption from filing affidavits are allowed. Applications seeking oral hearing of the Review Petitions are allowed. List the Review Petitions on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, the bench said.

Justice Ramasubramanian, however, in a minority dissenting verdict said the grounds raised in the Review Petitions do not fall within the parameters of a review.

With utmost respect, I regret my inability to agree with the order. I have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and I do not find any valid ground to review the judgement.

The grounds raised in the Review Petitions do not fall within the parameters of a review and hence the applications seeking oral hearing deserve to be dismissed, Justice Ramasubramanian said in an order dated February 15.

The top court on March 26, 2021, had set aside a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order restoring Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of USD 100 billion salt-to-software conglomerates.

The apex court had also dismissed a plea of Shapoorji Pallonji Group seeking separation of ownership interests in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd (TSPL).

Mistry had succeeded Ratan Tata as the chairman of TSPL in 2012 but was ousted four years later.

The SP Group had told the top court that Mistry's removal as the chairman of TSPL at a board meeting held in October 2016 was akin to a "blood sport" and "ambush", in complete violation of the principles of corporate governance and in pervasive violation of the Articles of Association in the process.

The Tata Group had vehemently opposed the allegations and denied any wrongdoing, saying the board was well within its right to remove Mistry as the chairman.