The war of words between Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry continued on Thursday, with the company dismissing the serious allegations made by the ousted Chairman as “unsubstantiated” and “malicious”.

Although the Tata group did not respond to the specific allegations that Mistry had made, it discredited the disclosures, and said his attempt to besmirch the image of the group in the eyes of the employees was “unforgivable”.

Mistry had, in a five-page letter sent to the board on Wednesday, levelled serious charges of corporate governance failings (and worse) within the Tata Group, and had raised the prospect of write-downs to the tune of ₹1.18 lakh crore due to flawed decisions made by Interim Chairman Ratan Tata. Mistry also revealed that he had faced interference from Ratan Tata, which left him without full control.

In response, the Tatas said in a statement that “the record, as and when made public, will prove things to the contrary.”

“It is a matter of deep regret that a communication marked ‘confidential’ to Tata Sons board members has been made public in an unseemly and undignified manner. The correspondence makes unsubstantiated claims and malicious allegations, casting aspersions on the Tata group, the Tata Sons board and several Tata companies and some respected individuals. These will be responded to in an appropriate manner,” the statement added.

Responding to claims that Mistry was not given full control, it said that as Executive Chairman, Mistry was fully empowered to lead the group and its companies. “It is unfortunate that it is only on his removal that allegations and misrepresentation of facts are being made about business decisions that the former Chairman was party to for over a decade in different capacities.“

It added: “The Tata Sons board gives its Chairman complete autonomy to manage opportunities and challenges. However, the tenure of (Mistry) was marked by repeated departures from the culture and ethos of the group.”

While Mistry blamed the board for not giving him an opportunity to present his case before ousting him, the Tata Sons statment said Mistry had “overwhelmingly lost the confidence of the Members of the Board of Directors for a combination of several factors.”

Mistry had also blamed his predecessor for flawed decisions related to Tata Motors, Air Asia and Indian Hotels. The Tatas said it would be “beneath the dignity” of Tata Sons to engage in a public spat “with regard to the several unfounded allegations appearing in his leaked confidential statement. These allegations are not based on facts or the true state of affairs. It is convenient to put selective information in the public domain to defend one’s point of view.”

Mistry shares blame: analysts Analysts are divided on who is at fault. JN Gupta, MD, Stakeholders Empowerment Services, said Cyrus Mistry is as culpable (in all the ‘flawed’ decisions) because the board bears collective responsibility.

“Now, when you’re on the other side, you’re telling me what’s wrong with the company. What were you doing when you were on the board? The only way you can avoid responsibility is if you had recorded your dissent at every board meeting. And if you did record your dissent and nobody listened to you, why did you stay on?” Gupta asked rhetorically.

Hetal Dalal, COO, Institutional Investor Advisory Services (IiAS), said the more important question is about what will happen going ahead. “The larger issue is: what can stakeholders in the Tata group of companies expect?”

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW