Tata Group rejects Mistrys’ settlement offer, legal tussle is likely to continue

The Mistry family led conglomerate had previously suggested swapping their 18.37 per cent stake Tata Sons Private Ltd in for shares, worth Rs 1.75 lakh crore, in the listed Tata companies.
Cyrus Mistry. (Photo | File/Reuters)
Cyrus Mistry. (Photo | File/Reuters)

NEW DELHI:  The Tata Group on Thursday rejected the share swap offer made by Shapoorji Pallonji Group and even called it a ‘nonsense’ proposal. 

“It is nonsense. This kind of relief cannot be granted,” senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Tatas’ told the Supreme Court. Salve argued that accepting such an offer could spill over to other Tata group’s listed firms where the SP group would be again holding minority stake. 

The Mistry family led conglomerate had previously suggested swapping their 18.37 per cent stake Tata Sons Private Ltd in for shares, worth Rs 1.75 lakh crore, in the listed Tata companies.

Tata Group claims that Mistrys stake is valued between Rs 70,000-80,000 crore. With the two groups yet to reach a consensus, the legal tussle is likely to continue. 

SP Group in October had submitted a plan of separation to the top Court, seeking to end its long association with the Tata Group.

The SC is hearing cross appeals filed by Tata Sons and Cyrus Investments against NCLAT’s order (December 2019) which had restored Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Group. 

C A Sundaram, appearing for Cyrus Investment, spoke extensively about the oppression faced by the minority shareholders, including the SP Group in the Tata Group companies.

“If you are a board managed company but the company is being run by the two nominee directors of Tata Sons, then what is the point of even bringing the matter to the Board,’ Sundaram said, adding that the Tata Sons is ‘effectively not a board managed company’,” said Sundaram.

“The entire case is of ‘oppression’ by Tata sons to SP group and ‘downstream companies get affected if the two nominees of the Tata Sons take a wrong decision for them. The whole thing came to a head because Mistry was going to table a Corporate governance document which proposed to regulate the Tata Trusts’ say in the Tata Sons,” he added.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com