Cyrus Mistry approaches NCLAT against his removal from Tata Sons

Ousted Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry today approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order of NCLT dismissing his plea challenging his removal as chairman of the company.

A petition was filed before the appellate tribunal against the July 9 order of the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
"We have filed the appeal today," Mistry's counsel said.

Mistry's appeal is now with the registry of the NCLAT, which would forward it after technical verification.

Asked as to when would the matter be listed for hearing, the counsel said: "Nothing has been decided as of now."

On July 9, NCLT Mumbai had dismissed pleas of Cyrus Mistry challenging Mistry's removal as Tata Sons chairman as also the allegations of rampant misconduct on part of Ratan Tata and the company's Board.

A special bench of the tribunal held that the Board of Directors at Tata Sons was "competent" to remove the executive chairperson of the company.

NCLT bench members B S V Prakash Kumar and V Nallasenapathy said that Mistry was ousted as chairman because the Tata Sons' Board and its majority shareholders had "lost confidence in him".

Under the Companies Act 2013, an order of NCLT can be challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

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 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement.

Two months after his removal, Mistry's family-run firms Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corp approached the NCLT as minority shareholders, against Tata Sons, Ratan Tata, and some other board members.

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.

He also alleged that Tata Trust chairperson Ratan Tata and trustee N Soonawala interfered with the day-to-day operations of the group companies, they acted as shadow directors, and all of the above caused massive revenue loss for the group.

The Tata Group had denied all charges and said Mistry was removed because the Board had lost confidence in him.