Supreme Court stays NCLAT order on Cyrus Mistry

New Delhi: The Supreme Court stayed Friday the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order restoring Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group, observing that there were ‘lacunae’ in the orders passed by the Tribunal.

A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant said the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision suffers from ‘basic errors and we have to hear the matter in detail’.

The bench also said, “You (Cyrus) have been out of the saddle quite a long time. Does this hurt you….How does it hurt you today.”

The bench said there was no prayer in the petition for reinstatement of Mistry but the tribunal went ahead with it and ordered his reinstatement. “We find there are lacunae in the judicial orders passed by the NCLAT,” the bench said issuing notices to Mistry and others.

Tata Sons Private Ltd (TSPL) challenged the December 18 decision of NCLAT that gave a big relief to Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd and Mistry, restoring him as the executive chairman of TSPL.

The bench issued notices to Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd, Mistry and others and posted the matter after four weeks.

The top court also ordered that the Tatas will not exercise power under Article 75 of the Company Law for pushing out shares of minority holders in the company.

Senior advocate CA Sundaram, appearing for the company Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd, submitted that instead of staying the NCLAT order, notice should be issued and two weeks be given for filing the reply.

However, the bench said, “Our first impression is not good about the order of the tribunal. The tribunal granted the prayer which was not prayed.”

Mistry’s side wanted to place a note about interim arrangement which was not accepted by the bench.

TSPL, formerly known as Tata Sons Limited, had sought setting aside of the judgment in toto ‘of NCLAT’, alleging it was ‘completely inconsistent with the annals of corporate law’ and reflected ‘non-appreciation of facts’, which was ‘”untenable in law’.