The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) judgement in the Tata-Mistry case is “baffling”, as it has offered a relief that has not been sought by Cyrus Mistry, according to Mohit Saraf, senior partner at law firm L&L Partners.
“I don’t see how the order is sustainable under the law because very limited principles of law have been discussed. What has been discussed was investments, family arrangements and how agreements were not adhered to. I don’t think these have any place under the common law,” Saraf told
According to Saraf, who is not associated with either of the parties, Mistry had not sought to be reinstated as chairman, even though NCLAT in its ruling had ordered the ousted chairman to be restored. The appellate tribunal has provided four weeks’ time for the reinstatement, while it has ordered Mistry to be brought back as a director with “immediate effect”.
Also read: NCLAT puts Cyrus Mistry back on Tata Sons saddle; co can appeal
“Mistry had only sought restoration as a board member and not as the chairman. NCLAT has restored Mistry as Chairman, which was outside of his expectations. The judgement overrides the law of the land and I don’t think it sustainable,” he said.
“At the end of the day, a company can be governed under Companies’ Act as per the Articles of Association, and the principles the judgement has relied upon are neither the Companies’ Act nor the AoA,” Saraf, said in his capacity as a corporate lawyer.