TATA v MISTRY

Hearing to resume today in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate CA Sundaram to continue arguments on behalf of Shapoorji Pallonji firms.

Follow this thread for live updates from court.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

#SupremeCourt #tatamistry

TATA v MISTRY

Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde assembles.

Hearing commences.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY

CJI SA Bobde announces that over the weekend he discovered his son who is practicing in Mumbai has been appearing for the last 2 years in a slum rehabilitation matter for a subsidiary company of Shapoorji Pallonji group.

@tatatrusts
TATA v MISTRY

CJI asks whether Harish Salve, Dr Singhvi or CA Sundaram has any objections to CJI hearing the matter.

None of them object. The same is recorded by the Court.

Hearing continues.

#SupremeCourt
TATA v MISTRY

CJI says such issues could cause potential problems in future.

Sundaram continues with his arguments.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY

Sundaram citing Articles of Tata Sons to show the supremacy of the Board.

Article 121A was introduced to ensure that certain matters had to necessarily have Board approval.

#SupremeCourt #TataSons
TATA v MISTRY

SP group also voted in favour of A 121 due to the relationship of trust they had with Tata Sons.

SP group could not have conceived that the article would be used against them: Sundaram.

#tatasons #SupremeCourt
TATA v MISTRY

Discussion on interest that Ratan Tata had in Ola/ Uber

Sundaram says he had a personal interest in Ola

CJI Bobde: Does it mean he had business interest

Dr. Singhvi says he wanted to have Tata cars used in Ola and Uber and not just Ola as suggested by Mistry
TATA v MISTRY

CJI Bobde: Mr. Sundaram, you must bear in mind that this is a private company. Our experience with such companies is that they have heads of families controlling, giving directions etc. Birlas, Tata all have such structures.

Your SP Group might also have it.
TATA v MISTRY

CJI Bobde: What is wrong in head of family wanting information or wanting to control decisions.

@tatatrusts
@TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY

Sundaram: This company owns many listed companies running to 65 lakh crores with public shareholders. So there should be some kind of independence in decision making.

If they wanted to keep a family affair, they should have remained so instead of making it public
TATA v. MISTRY

A public charitable trust cannot legally run such companies. That is why it needs it be "board run": CA Sundaram.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

#SupremeCourt
TATA v MISTRY

They cannot use the Articles to claim that they have absolute right over affairs of the company: CA Sundaram

Bench rises. Hearing to continue tomorrow.

@tatatrusts

#TataSons #SupremeCourt
TATA v Mistry: What is wrong in head of family wanting a say in the company's affairs?: Supreme Court asks [LIVE UPDATES]

#TataSons @tatatrusts @TataCompanies @RNTata2000
#cyrusmistry
https://t.co/gMD5CxzO66

More from Bar & Bench

More from Law

This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:

Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”


Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:

“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”

This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”

Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”

Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.

She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“

Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”

Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
One of the judges this story mentions is William Cassidy, who was promoted from an Atlanta IJ position to a BIA member position in 2019 by the Trump DOJ. Cassidy has an awful history that has been well-documented, but I'm still enraged reading this reporting.


The story notes that the EOIR Director served as an ICE attorney in Atlanta and practiced before Cassidy for years. And it points to FOIA records unearthed by Bryan Johnson showing they remain friendly.

A trove of complaints against Cassidy was published by AILA in 2019 after FOIA litigation. They generally show misconduct, substantiated in the record, followed by "written counseling" etc.

One way Cassidy could avoid discipline is by turning off the recording device during the hearing. If he made a lewd or offensive comment off the record, all the EOIR would do is listen to the recording. If it's not there, the complaint is "unsubstantiated" https://t.co/wUeBPEEbpV


In that case, Cassidy joked about a detained immigrant saying he missed his wife. The complaint was dismissed because the ACIJ found "no levity or joking" in the comment.

You May Also Like