TATA v MISTRY [Day 6]

Hearing to resume before Supreme Court in a short while from now.

@tatatrusts
@TataCompanies

#SupremeCourt

TATA v MISTRY

Senior counsel Shyam Divan begins arguments on behalf of Shapoorji Pallonji group.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY

This case is about corporate governance. We have moved from corporate democracy to a much richer corporate governance under the amended Companies Act: Divan

@tatatrusts
TATA v MISTRY

The management of company is the board. The most crucial obligation imposed on Director now is that the director is a fiduciary. A fiduciary's allegiance is to the company alone: Divan

#SupremeCourt #tatasons
TATA v MISTRY

Lack of probity is much broader than financial irregularities.

The long relationship between the two groups developed over decades. It developed in the context of a statutory framework which restricted the role of private trust: Divan.
TATA v MISTRY

There was a beach of articles in the removal of Cyrus Mistry: Divan

#tatasons #tatamistry
TATA v MISTRY

Management has to be by the board as per the articles and the statute.

Termination of managing director has to be by a resolution. The same process as is followed for appointment has to be followed: Divan
TATA v MISTRY

Section 166 is very very important. It lays down duties of Directors.

If you are torn between allegiance to company and allegiance to something else, then you cannot act as a Director: Divan.
TATA v MISTRY

Director cannot abdicate or yield on his/her independent judgment. Director may consult or take advice but has to act independently and cannot be compelled or coerced: Divan
TATA v MISTRY

Two directors had praised Mistry for his performance as Executive Chairperson four months before his removal. Those two directors did not even file their response explaining their conduct: Divan.

#tatavmisrty #tata #mistry
TATA v MISTRY

Supreme Court says it is intending to make certain observations on the procedure to be followed by tribunals. This was in the context of whether plea before NCLAT should have been amended by way of amendment applications or additional affidavits.

@tatatrusts
TATA v MISTRY

The selection of Tata Sons chairperson is crucial. It affects so many companies and stakeholders across countries and continents: Divan

#SupremeCourt #tatasons #mistry
TATA v MISTRY

Ratan Tata is not subject to the discipline under Section 166 of the Companies Act. He ceased of be board member in December 2012 and did not attended a single board meeting till October 2016: Divan
TATA v MISTRY

Shyam Divan reading case laws on corporate governance and fiduciary duties of Director stating how the Companies Act moved from corporate majority to corporate governance.
TATA v MISTRY

Divan says TATA Trusts could not vote on its own shares between 1964 and 2000 due to statutory restrictions and it was a public trustee appointed by Central government who could vote on your shares: Divan
TATA v MISTRY

That was when Shapoorji Pallonji because of their relationship with Tata became a reliable partner who could vote and that is why Tata sold their shares to SPG. This continued till public trustee mandate was done away with in 2000 and Tata Trusts could vote : Divan
TATA v MISTRY

Divan giving history of Shapoorji Pallonji group's relationship with TATA group and how various SP group persons served on board of various Tata group companies.

The relationship is 5 decades old of which 4 was during public trustee regime: Divan

@TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY

The relationship was of one utmost trust and good faith. The only thing we asked for was a place on the board which is recognised under Companies Act of 2013: Divan
TATA v MISTRY

Hence, the removal of Mistry was illegal, oppressive and against good faith and trust which Tata and Shapoorji Pallonji group shared: Divan

@tatatrusts
@TataCompanies

#SupremeCourt #tatasons
TATA v MISTRY

Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow.

#SupremeCourt #tatasons

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies @RNTata2000

More from Bar & Bench

More from Court

In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary

Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.

https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc


Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.

Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
1) God bless the State of Texas and @KenPaxtonTX What he has just done gives us every chance to save our Republic and our country.

Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by

2) another state is one of those instances.

https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh

Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to


3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”

@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were

4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”

The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting

5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but

You May Also Like

MDZS is laden with buddhist references. As a South Asian person, and history buff, it is so interesting to see how Buddhism, which originated from India, migrated, flourished & changed in the context of China. Here's some research (🙏🏼 @starkjeon for CN insight + citations)

1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (
https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)

2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).

These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.

Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.

3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)