The Shapoorji Pallonji Group has moved the Supreme Court in search of a overview of its March 26 judgement that rejected the group’s case against the Tatas, saying the judgement has “patent errors”, strikes at the core of the Companies Act and is a comprehensive miscarriage of justice on the proper of minority shareholders front.
The Mistrys are saying the reasoning behind the apex court judgement, authored by a 3-judge bench headed by the then chief justice S A Bobde, is so egregious that it warrants a overview.
The judgement is contrary to each the Companies Act, 2013 and the statues since it justifies the Tata group breaching its personal articles of association though removing Cyrus Mistry as chairman, therefore leaving the complete judgement inherently contradictory, it mentioned.
This overview petition seeks to set proper the errors apparent on the face of the record since if these are unaddressed, it will substantially effect the rights of all other minority shareholders and erode statutory protections accorded to them below the Companies Act, says the petition filed on April 24.
These patent errors not only lead to miscarriage of justice but also strike at the core of the legal safeguards assured below the new 2013 organizations law, it mentioned.
The petition follows the March 26 Supreme Court order that dismissed all pleas of the SP Group and set aside the NCLAT order of December 2019 that reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons.
The overview petition, which is however be admitted, lists out what it calls various “patent errors” in the judgement.
Listing out contradictions in the judgement, the petition says on one hand it held that removal of a director “can never be oppressive or prejudicial”, but on the other it held that exactly where the removal is oppressive, relief can be granted — but not to this petitioner.
This is relevant since if one of these two approaches is to be accepted, then SP Group’s complaints will fall inside the formulation of the law even as laid down in the judgment, says the petition.
The judgement also terms the truth-findings by NCLAT to be perverse by ignoring them all collectively, even as it acknowledged that the legal requirements have to be met ahead of a court of law can interfere with such findings.
What is more, even the Tatas did not seek to contact any of the NCLAT findings as perverse, notes the petition.
The judgement says Mistry was not a managing director of Tata Sons but only the executive chairman and consequently shareholders’ resolution was not expected for his removal, it added.