Tata Sons cannot forcibly buy Cyrus Mistry's shares for now: NCLAT
New Delhi, Aug 24 : In a temporary relief to Cyrus Mistry, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday stated that Tata Sons cannot force him to sell his shares till the disposal of his appeal.
However, the appellate tribunal declined his plea for a stay on the conversion of Tata Sons into a private company.
The two-judge bench headed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyaya said it will decide on the conversion of Tata Sons, parent company of $103 billion Tata Group, from a public limited company into a private limited company after hearing the final arguments. The next hearing of the case is slated for September 24.
Mistry, who took over as Tata Group Chairman in December 2012 and was ousted in October 2016 by the Tata Sons board, had filed the petition with the NCLAT against the July 9 decision of the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai bench.
The bench had upheld the decision of the Tata Sons board dismissing Mistry as Chairman.
On July 9, the NCLT Mumbai bench ruled that the Tata Sons Board of Directors was competent to remove the Executive Chairman and that Mistry was ejected as the board members had lost confidence in him.
The NCLT verdict had come on a petition filed by Mistry after he was abruptly ousted as the Chairman that had created an upheaval in the Indian corporate world.
Mistry later quit from the board of other six Tata Group companies but challenged the Group, and former and interim Chairman Ratan Tata's decisions, before the NCLT.
Last September, the shareholders of Tata Sons agreed to convert the public limited company into a private limited company, which in effect would restrict any shareholder from selling its stake to outsiders.
The shareholders approved the conversion saying it would help the company become more swift in decision making despite Mistry's opposition to it. Mistry, through his family firms Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments, owns 18.4 per cent of Tata Sons while 66 per cent is owned by Tata Trusts.
Mistry's family had termed the decision as an act of oppression of minority shareholders.
On August 10, the Registrar of Companies approved the decision of Tata Sons to go private.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
