Mumbai court summons Mistry in defamation case

Updated - January 11, 2018 at 12:27 PM.

Tata Trusts’ Managing Trustee seeks ₹500 cr in damages over alleged false statements

Cyrus Mistry

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, has issued a summons to Cyrus Mistry, the ousted Tata Sons’ Chairman and other accused in the criminal defamation case filed by R Venkataramanan, Managing Trustee, Tata Trusts, for allegedly making false statements against him.

Admitting the case on Tuesday, Krishna G Paldewar issued process summons against Cyrus Mistry, Shapoor Mistry and directors of their company, Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments to be present before the Court on August 24.

They face trial for the charges of criminal defamation under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code.

Cyrus Mistry’s office said in a statement late Tuesday evening that “the attempt to initiate criminal prosecution for alleged defamation is an ill-advised and immature proxy battle through Venkataraman whose role in AirAsia is subject matter of several investigations by law enforcement agencies. The move by the Tata Trustees to attempt to muzzle and interfere with legal proceedings faced by them, now before the NCLAT will be effectively and appropriately dealt with. We believe in the nation's legal system and know such subversion of justice systems will meet its fate. The petitioners in the NCLAT proceedings and Mistry will continue to do the right thing by the Tata Group and protect it from oppressive conduct and mismanagement."

Venkataramanan has sought ₹500 crore in damages through the complaint, coinciding with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) hearing of cases between Mistry and Tata Sons in Delhi.

The NCLAT hearing started on Monday and will go on till Friday.

In his complaint, Venkataramanan has said that Mistry's October 25, 2016, e-mail to Tata Sons directors and trustees of Tata Trusts contained "defamatory statements" about him.

The court upheld the arguments of Venkatramanan's counsel, Parvez Memon that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, protecting a citizen’s right to life is inclusive of the right to live with dignity, and that all are equal in the eyes of the law under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It was argued that “While Cyrus Mistry is a man with substantial wealth and substantial might, the value of Venkataramanan's dignity is much more. Cyrus Mistry cannot be let lose with impunity for his reckless and irresponsible insinuations which were all false and baseless. All such allegations were hurled irresponsibly against Venkataramanan, Ratan Tata, Tata Sons and others only after his unceremonious ouster from Tata Sons. Why was he otherwise silent for his entire tenure, not to speak about several of his own wrongdoings against which Tata Sons may have its own cause of action?”

Mistry had alleged about “certain fraudulent transactions of ₹22 crore” involving non-existent parties in India and Singapore at AirAsia India and had stated that Venkataramanan considered these transactions as "non-material" and "did not encourage any further study” of it.

According to the complaint filed, the e-mail, which then found its way to the media, has caused "irreparable" damages to his reputation among his colleagues, family, friends and society.

The complaint further states that, Mistry had made “false, malicious and derogatory” allegations against Venkat in the filings with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai.

In his filings, Mistry had reportedly stated that Venkat had asked Tata Capital to offer loans to C Sivasankaran (a close friend of Ratan Tata), which had turned bad.

Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investment, which hold stake in Tata Sons, had moved the Mumbai tribunal against oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement of Tata companies.

The tribunal had dismissed the petition citing that the investment firms have insufficient shareholding to seek a legal recourse.

It had also declined to grant a waiver on the maintainability of the petition. The companies then appealed against the tribunal's order at NCLAT, New Delhi.

On June 23, reacting to defamation case Cyrus Mistry's office said in a statement that it was not ‘intimidated’ by the ₹500 crore suit.

Published on July 4, 2017 16:29