{"id":223895,"date":"2020-01-07T09:30:02","date_gmt":"2020-01-07T04:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=223895"},"modified":"2020-01-22T12:32:34","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T07:02:34","slug":"tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/","title":{"rendered":"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"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0<\/strong>A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), dismissed the interlocutory application preferred by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, seeking amendment of the NCLAT’s Judgment dated 18-12-2019 (“earlier judgment”) wherein the removal of Cyrus Mistry from the Chairmanship of Tata Sons was held invalid and conversion of TATA Sons Ltd. from Public Company to Private Company was also held invalid. The Registrar was aggrieved by the observations made at paras 181, 186 and 187 of the earlier judgment.<\/p>\n

The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, while making the order of the change of status of Tata Sons from Public Company to Private Company, relied on Section 43-A(2-A) of the Companies Act of 1956, which was unrepealed t the relevant time. The said provision provides:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\u201c43-A. Private company to become a public company in certain cases.***<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

(2-A) Where a public company referred to in sub-section (2) becomes a private company on or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000, such company shall inform the Registrar that it has become a private company and thereupon the Registrar shall substitute the word `private company’ for the word `public company’ in the name of the company upon the register and shall also make the necessary alterations in the certificate of incorporation issued to the company and in its memorandum of association within four weeks from the date of application made by the company.”<\/p>\n

However, noted the NCLAT,sub-section (4) of Section 43-A was not noticed by the Registrar, which says:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\u201c43-A. Private company to become a public company in certain cases.***<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

“(4) A private company that has become a public company by virtue of this section shall continue to be a public company until it has, with the approval of the Central Government and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, again become a private company.\u201d<\/p>\n

Perusing these provisions, the NCLAT explained that Registrar of Companies cannot take advantage of Section 43-A (2-A) on the ground that it has not been repealed because:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

“Section 43-A (2A) while empowers a \u2018Public Company\u2019 to become a private Company\u2019 on or after commencement of the Companies(Amendment) Act, 2000 by informing the matter to the Registrar for substitution of the word \u2018private company\u2019 with the word \u2018public company\u2019 in the name of the company upon the register and certificate of incorporation issued to the company and its memorandum of association but under Section 43A (4) such \u2018private company\u2019 which has been made public company by virtue of the said provision, will continue to be a public company\u2019 until it has, with the approval of the Central Government and in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, again become a \u2018private company\u2019.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The NCLAT noted that since Tata Sons did not take any approval from the Central Government, as mentioned above, so it shall continue to be a Public Company.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it was not the case of the Registrar that as per Section 14\u00a0(alteration of articles)\u00a0<\/em>of the Companies Act, 2013, Tata Sons by a special resolution altered its article having the effect of its conversion from a Public Company into a Private Company. It was also not the case of the Registrar that such resolution was produced before it. No approval was taken from the Tribunal (NCLT). It was also noted that Section 18 of the Companies Act, 2013, specifically refers to\u00a0the conversion of companies already registered.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thus, there being a specific provision for\u00a0conversion of companies\u00a0<\/em>already registered in terms of Section 18 of the Companies Act, 2013 and\u00a0alteration of articles\u00a0<\/em>in terms of Section 14, the Registrar of Companies could not rely on Section\u00a043-A (2A) of 1956 Act that too without relying on sub-section (4) therein which relates to requirement of approval of the Central government.<\/p>\n

Lastly, one of the grievances of the Registrar of Companies was that the observations made in paras 181, 186, 187 of the earlier Judgment cast aspersions on the Registrar of Companies.<\/p>\n

On this, the NCLAT found that this was a wrong perception of the Registrar of Companies as no observation had been made against the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, not anything alleged against him.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Therefore, no ground is made out to amend the Judgment dated 18-12-2019 in the absence of any factual or legal error apparent on the body of the aforesaid Judgment. There is a typographical error at Paragraph 171 wherein un-amended Section 2(68) has wrongly been typed which has been ordered to be corrected. [Cyrus Investments (P) Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd.,\u00a02020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1<\/a>,\u00a0<\/b>decided on 06-01-2020]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), dismissed the interlocutory <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":153604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[31017,39170,39169,31339,39147,31016],"class_list":["post-223895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-cyrus-mistry","tag-private-company","tag-public-company","tag-registrar-of-companies","tag-section-43-a2-a-of-the-companies-act-of-1956","tag-tata-sons"],"yoast_head":"\nTata 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 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"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\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), dismissed the interlocutory\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-07T04:00:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-22T07:02:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"844\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/\",\"name\":\"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 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-07T04:00:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-22T07:02:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":844},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"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\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"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 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"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","og_description":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), dismissed the interlocutory","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-07T04:00:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-22T07:02:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/","name":"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 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","datePublished":"2020-01-07T04:00:02+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-22T07:02:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","width":1330,"height":844},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/tata-v-mistry-nclat-explains-why-roc-cannot-take-advantage-of-s-43-a2-a-of-companies-act-1956-clarifies-no-aspersion-cast-on-roc-in-earlier-order\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"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"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":223380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/18\/breaking-removal-of-cyrus-mistry-as-executive-chairman-of-tata-sons-held-illegal-by-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":223895,"position":0},"title":"[Breaking] Removal of Cyrus Mistry as Chairman of Tata Sons held illegal by NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"As reported by media, NCLAT has restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and held the appointment of N Chandrasekaran as illegal. Resolution by Tata Sons board removing Mistry was illegal. The appellate tribunal also set aside the change of Tata Sons from public to private company.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248255,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/15\/tata-v-mistry-a-case-for-greater-protection-of-minority-shareholders-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":223895,"position":1},"title":"Tata v. Mistry: A Case for Greater Protection of Minority Shareholders\u2019 Rights","author":"Editor","date":"May 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Varghese George Thekkel\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-39.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-39.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-39.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-39.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-39.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246198,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/26\/reinstatement-by-nclat-too-big-a-pill-for-perhaps-even-cyrus-mistry-to-swallow-heres-why-supreme-court-upheld-cyrus-mistrys-removal-as-chairman-by-the-tata-sons\/","url_meta":{"origin":223895,"position":2},"title":"‘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","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 26, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\"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.\u00a0\"","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200840,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/29\/no-restriction-on-conversion-of-tata-sons-to-private-limited-company-was-a-hybrid-company-all-along-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":223895,"position":3},"title":"No restriction on conversion of Tata Sons to private limited company; was a \u2018hybrid\u2019 company all along: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) passed orders at the stage of admission of appeals filed by Cyrus Investments against the judgment of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai whereby it dismissed appellant\u2019s applications filed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235683,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/12\/unpacking-the-scope-of-oppression-prejudice-and-mismanagement-under-the-companies-act-2013\/","url_meta":{"origin":223895,"position":4},"title":"Unpacking the scope of oppression, prejudice and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 [SCC Archives]","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 12, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Umakanth Varottil\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/companies-act-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/companies-act-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/companies-act-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/companies-act-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/companies-act-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":198601,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/17\/no-merit-in-cyrus-mistrys-petition-against-removal-as-chairman-tata-sons-nclt\/","url_meta":{"origin":223895,"position":5},"title":"No merit in Cyrus Mistry\u2019s petition against removal as Chairman (Tata Sons): NCLT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 17, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The petitioner\u2019s who held over 18% equity shares in Tata Sons Ltd., were propelled to file the company petition against Tata Sons Ltd., Ratan Tata (Chairman Emeritus) and others. The petition arose consequent to the incident on 24-10-2016 wherein the Co.\u00a0 Board meeting, Cyrus Mistry\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223895\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}