<p>Ratan Tata, chairman emeritus of Tata sons, on Friday filed a separate petition in the Supreme Court with a plea to quash the NCLAT's order for restore Cyrus Mistry as chairman, saying the direction was erroneous and would affect corporate structure and governance.</p>.<p>A day after the petition by the Tata Sons Private Ltd, the eminent industrialist approached the top court, saying the company law appellate tribunal's order was "contrary to the record of the case".<br /><br />He sought a stay on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's December 18, 2019 order to reinstate Cyrus Mistry as the chairman, contending it was "very unfortunate and distressing" that the judgment without providing any proper evidence has passed adverse remarks against him, ignoring that the fact he has spent more than half of his life in building the name of the Tata Sons and other Tata operating companies to one of the top global companies.</p>.<p>Tata, chairman emeritus and a shareholder of Tata Sons, said the NCLAT judgment was wrong as it treated Tata Sons as a two-group company.</p>.<p>In his plea, he maintained that Mistry was made the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons in a purely professional capacity and not as a representative of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, which holds 18.4 per cent in Tata Sons.</p>.<p>Tata Trusts, of whom Ratan Tata had been a chairman for many years, holds 65.89 per cent of Tata Sons.</p>.<p>In his petition, he said Mistry's leadership "was lacking" in "his reluctance to timely and meaningfully disassociate himself from his family business after he became the Chairman of Tata Sons and address any conflict in this regard, which was a condition precedent to his appointment as Chairman of Tata Sons".</p>.<p>He alleged Mistry had concentrated power and authority in his own hands and board members were being alienated on matters relating to Tata Operating Companies where Tata Sons had huge financial exposure.</p>.<p>Tata said the NCLAT reached a judgment based on "a contrived and self-serving reading of certain correspondence from which it derives erroneous findings which kaleidoscopically portray the larger theme of the judgment on purported oppression and prejudice to the Shapoorji Pallonji Group (SP Group)".</p>.<p>Denying 550 mails between him and Cyrus Mistry as mentioned in the NCLAT judgment, he said, "These were between Chairman Emeritus and Chairman Cyrus Mistry and not by entities in court."</p>
<p>Ratan Tata, chairman emeritus of Tata sons, on Friday filed a separate petition in the Supreme Court with a plea to quash the NCLAT's order for restore Cyrus Mistry as chairman, saying the direction was erroneous and would affect corporate structure and governance.</p>.<p>A day after the petition by the Tata Sons Private Ltd, the eminent industrialist approached the top court, saying the company law appellate tribunal's order was "contrary to the record of the case".<br /><br />He sought a stay on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's December 18, 2019 order to reinstate Cyrus Mistry as the chairman, contending it was "very unfortunate and distressing" that the judgment without providing any proper evidence has passed adverse remarks against him, ignoring that the fact he has spent more than half of his life in building the name of the Tata Sons and other Tata operating companies to one of the top global companies.</p>.<p>Tata, chairman emeritus and a shareholder of Tata Sons, said the NCLAT judgment was wrong as it treated Tata Sons as a two-group company.</p>.<p>In his plea, he maintained that Mistry was made the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons in a purely professional capacity and not as a representative of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, which holds 18.4 per cent in Tata Sons.</p>.<p>Tata Trusts, of whom Ratan Tata had been a chairman for many years, holds 65.89 per cent of Tata Sons.</p>.<p>In his petition, he said Mistry's leadership "was lacking" in "his reluctance to timely and meaningfully disassociate himself from his family business after he became the Chairman of Tata Sons and address any conflict in this regard, which was a condition precedent to his appointment as Chairman of Tata Sons".</p>.<p>He alleged Mistry had concentrated power and authority in his own hands and board members were being alienated on matters relating to Tata Operating Companies where Tata Sons had huge financial exposure.</p>.<p>Tata said the NCLAT reached a judgment based on "a contrived and self-serving reading of certain correspondence from which it derives erroneous findings which kaleidoscopically portray the larger theme of the judgment on purported oppression and prejudice to the Shapoorji Pallonji Group (SP Group)".</p>.<p>Denying 550 mails between him and Cyrus Mistry as mentioned in the NCLAT judgment, he said, "These were between Chairman Emeritus and Chairman Cyrus Mistry and not by entities in court."</p>
