SC stays NCLAT order restoring Cyrus Mistry's appointment as Tata group executive chairman

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order restoring Cyrus Mistry's appointment as executive chairman of the Tata group.

In a statement issued on January 5, Mistry had said that he will not be pursuing the executive chairmanship of Tata Sons or directorship of TCS, Tata Teleservices or Tata Industries, but "will, however, vigorously pursue all options to protect our rights as a minority shareholder."

"I will, however, vigorously pursue all options to protect our rights as a minority shareholder, including that of resuming the thirty-year history of a seat at the Board of Tata Sons and the incorporation of the highest standards of corporate governance and transparency at Tata Sons," he had said.

On January 2, Tata Sons Limited approached the Supreme Court against the NCLAT order of reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the company.

On December 18, the NCLAT had restored Cyrus Mistry's appointment as the Executive Chairman of the Tata Group and held that the appointment of N Chandrasekaran was illegal.

The tribunal, however, clarified the restoration order will be operational only after four weeks, thus allotting time to Tatas to file an appeal.

The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had dismissed the petitions filed by the two investment firms - Cyrus Investments Private Ltd and Sterling Investments Corporation - 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.

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