Supreme Court to deliver judgement in Tata Sons-Cyrus Mistry case on Friday

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde would pronounce the verdict

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce on Friday its verdict on the cross-appeals by Tata Sons and Cyrus Investments challenging the NCLAT order, which restored Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the Tata conglomerate.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde and comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian would pronounce the verdict at 11 am on March 26.

It is to be seen whether the long-drawn legal battle between Ratan Tata and Mistry reaches its finality with the judgement.

The court had reserved the verdict on December 17, last year.

Read | Tata-Mistry row: ITAT junks negative remarks on Mistry

Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Tata Sons, had submitted that Mistry walked away from the board on October 24, 2016, and later wrote a nasty email.

Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing Cyrus Investments, rebutted that he was removed and he did not walk away.

On the final hearing in the matter, Tatas had pointed out that Shapoorji Pallonji Group’s case on quasi partnership is a misrepresentation of facts. Shapoorji Pallonji Group’s entry into Tata Sons in 1996 was not a part of some grand alliance. Salve had submitted that there should be a “selection committee” to “unselect” a person is “nonsensical”.

“A selection committee selects and recommends a candidate for the position of chairman. However, the removal can only be done by the Board because only the Board is privy to the incumbent chairman’s work and can take a decision on removal," Salve said.

He said that Shapoorji Pallonji Group’s case on quasi partnership is a fiction that they have peddled before the court. Tata Group denied that Tata Sons is a partnership between the Tatas and the Mistry’s.

It claimed Mistry’s status is that of an investor and they have got huge returns. “They don’t have any special rights under the company’s articles," Salve had said. Shapoorji Pallonji Group counsel argued that Mistry was removed because he was going to place a draft governance structure at the Board meeting on October 24, 2016.