Mistry seeks transfer of pleas against Tatas to Delhi bench

Cyrus Mistry has approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to seek transfer of his appeals challenging his removal as Tata group chairman from the Mumbai bench to the New Delhi bench.
The transfer pleas filed by the two investment firms scheduled for hearing tomorrow before the Principal bench of the NCLT headed by Chairman Justice M M Kumar.
Confirming the development, senior advocate C A Sundaram said that an application has been filed for transfer of the case.
The investment firms are Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corporation Pvt Ltd.
Last month, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had granted Cyrus Mistry waiver in the minimum shareholding rule for him to file a case of alleged oppression of minority shareholders after observing 'exceptional' and 'compelling circumstances' in the entire episode.

The Mistry family owns 18.4 per cent stake in the closely-held Tata Sons. The shareholding, however, is less than 3 per cent if preferential shares are excluded, not meeting the criteria of at least 10 per cent ownership in a company for filing of a case of alleged oppression of minority shareholders.

The NCLAT has asked the NCLT, which previously dismissed Mistry's petition against Tata Sons on the ground of not meeting the minimum shareholding criteria, to decide on the case in three months.
Mistry has been locked in a legal battle with the Tatas since his unceremonious exit as chairman of Tata Sons -- the promoter company of the USD 105-billion car-to-software Tata group in October last year.

Mistry was ousted as Tata Sons chairman on October 24, 2016, and was also removed subsequently as a director on the board of the holding company on February 6, 2017.
Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corporation Pvt Ltd had moved the NCLT against Tata Sons after Mistry's ouster last year alleging oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement.
However, on April 17, the Mumbai bench of the NCLT had rejected the waiver plea filed by the investment firms while on March 6, it had set aside the one over maintainability. Following that, both the investment firms had moved the appellate tribunal.