Live
- Pokémon TCG Pocket to Introduce Card Trading in January 2025
- Nani unveils ‘MM 2’ title & first look
- Will challenge bail granted to actor Darshan in fan murder case in SC: Bengaluru Police Commissioner
- Chandrahass Launches Maruti Suzuki Dzire Through PJ Productions in Tolichowki Showroom
- Police case against farmers for tilling land claimed by Waqf Board in Karnataka
- Commendable move: Sandeep Dikshit on renaming Sarai Kale Khan ISBT chowk after Birsa Munda
- MahaYuti will come back to power with a thumping majority despite Oppn's tirade: Eknath Shinde
- ‘Hanging up my racquet. Thank you’ - India’s Prajnesh Gunneswaran retires from professional tennis
- Pawan Kalyan to Campaign for NDA Alliance in Maharashtra
- Eight killed, five injured in Nepal's traffic accident
Ratan Tata asked Mistry to resign before ouster
Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus P Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote.
Mumbai: Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus P Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote.
In a para-by-para response to the petition filed by investment firms associated with Mistry’s family against his removal, Tata Sons, the holding company of the $103 billion conglomerate, told the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that Mistry was removed as Chairman on October 24 last year after “little or no signs of improvement” in his leadership.
Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for his replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interest director.
“Before the commencement of the board meeting of Tata Sons on October 24, 2016, Ratan N Tata and (director) Nitin Nohria personally spoke to Cyrus Mistry and offered Cyrus Mistry an opportunity to resign voluntarily as Executive Chairman. However, Cyrus Mistry refused to do so,” Tata Sons said in 204-page affidavit.
Stating that the decision was not taken suddenly or in haste, it said the removal “was the result of a chain of events that led to a growing trust and confidence deficit that had to be addressed without delay”.
The affidavit said Mistry was reluctant to accept and fully embrace the terms in the Articles of Association that spelled out the governance structure of Tata Sons and certain rights of the Tata Trusts and the Trust Nominee Directors, terms which he himself had participated in finalising.
The affidavit said: “This systematic dilution weakened the bind through which Tata values, ethos, governance principles, group strategies were to be implemented across the Tata Group companies”.
“In most of the cases, Mistry ensured that he was the only director who was common to Tata Sons and Tata Group companies. Effectively making himself the only ‘channel’ between Tata Sons and Tata group companies. Mistry’s actions were deliberately weakening the Tata Group structure which was inimical to Tata Sons’ interest and therefore, the mismanagement, if any has been perpetrated by Mistry.”
