Tata v. Mistry: A Case for Greater Protection of Minority Shareholders’ Rights
by Varghese George Thekkel†
Cyrus Mistry
‘Reinstatement by NCLAT “too big a pill” for perhaps even Cyrus Mistry to swallow’; Here’s why Supreme Court upheld Cyrus Mistry’s removal as Chairman by the Tata Sons
“NCLAT appears to have granted the relief of reinstatement gratis without any foundation in pleadings, without any prayer and without any basis in law, thereby forcing upon the appellant an Executive Chairman, who now is unable to support his own reinstatement. “
Tata v. Mistry | NCLAT explains why RoC cannot take advantage of S. 43-A(2-A) of Companies Act, 1956; Clarifies, no aspersion cast on RoC in earlier order
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), dismissed the interlocutory
[Breaking] Removal of Cyrus Mistry as Chairman of Tata Sons held illegal by NCLAT
As reported by media, NCLAT has restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and held the appointment of N
Bom HC | Imputations against Nusli Wadia being part of statutory Notice under S. 169 Companies Act, held were not defamatory; issue of process against Ratan Tata and Ajay Piramal quashed
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Ranjit More and Bharati H. Dangre, JJ. quashed the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
No merit in Cyrus Mistry’s petition against removal as Chairman (Tata Sons): NCLT
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The petitioner’s who held over 18% equity shares in Tata Sons Ltd., were propelled to file the