Mistry not to pursue chairmanship at TATA Sons

Mistry not to pursue chairmanship at TATA Sons

Cyrus Mistry. (Photo credit: ANI)

Cyrus Mistry, who was restored as the Chairman of Tata Sons by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal last month, has said that he won’t be pursuing any kind of leadership role at the company, despite the verdict in his favour.

“To dispel the misinformation campaign being conducted, I intend to make it clear that despite the NCLAT order in my favour, I will not be pursuing the executive chairmanship of Tata Sons, or directorship of TCS, Tata Teleservices or Tata Industries,” Mistry said on Sunday.

Interestingly, the move comes days after Tata Sons moved to Supreme Court against the order of NCLAT to restore the chairmanship of Mistry at Tata Sons. The order by NCLAT had also restored Mistry’s directorship in various Tata Group companies with immediate effect. In October 2016, Mistry was sacked from the top of Tata Sons after the board passed a no-confidence resolution against him – leading to a bitter legal fight between Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry.

The scion of Shapoorji Pallonji Group, Mistry holds close to 18% stake in the Tata Sons. On the other hand, Tata Trusts own 66% in the conglomerate.

Mistry, however, said that he would continue his fight to protect the interest of the minority shareholders in the company, stating that the legal battle was “never about him”.

“I will however vigorously pursue all options to protect our rights as a minority shareholder, including that of resuming the thirty-year history of a seat at the Board of Tata Sons and the incorporation of the highest standards of corporate governance and transparency at Tata Sons,” he said.

Mistry also alleged that the Tata Group patriarch, Ratan Tata, of “brute majoritarianism” in the corporate structure.

“Recent media reports attributed to Mr. Ratan Tata and others questioning the NCLAT judgment ahead of an important hearing in the Supreme Court, profess an interpretation of Corporate Democracy as being one of brute majoritarianism with no rights for minority stakeholders. The question in these legal proceedings is whether the oppressive actions of a majority that stifles minority shareholders is beyond reproach and outside judicial oversight,” he said.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
Comments (+)