The CJI said the Bench had even asked the same question to Tata’s counsel Harish Salve at the beginning of the hearing whether there was any power with the NCLAT to exercise suo motu powers to reinstate and the CJI said apparently there was none. The NCLAT perhaps wanted Mistry to continue as chairman of Tata Sons, the CJI remarked. Mistry counsel said even they had not prayed for reinstatement as Chairman.
The CJI also asked which law was violated or restricted any director from pre consultation with others? This was in response to Mistry alleging that Tata Trusts nominated directors were consulting group patriarch Ratan Tata before taking any decisions.