Companies

Tatas to Mistry: return all ‘confidential’ papers

Our Bureau MUMBAI | Updated on January 27, 2018 Published on December 29, 2016

File photo of Cyrus Mistry.   -  PTI

Legal notice says he moved information ‘dishonestly’

Tata Sons has served another legal notice on ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry, asking him to return all confidential and sensitive information and documents in his possession “immediately”.

The Tata Sons’ notice, the second this week, directs Mistry not to retain any copies of the documents.

Further, it also demanded a written declaration from Mistry that he has not shared any confidential information with his family members and family-run firms.

“Our client has strong reason to believe that you are in possession of highly-valuable information and documents pertaining to our client and Tata Group companies, and have disclosed such information without prior authorisation and direction from the board of the directors of the company,” the notice sent through Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, said.

It also accused Mistry of “wrongfully and dishonestly” moving confidential information without the company’s consent.

The notice also alleged that the documents were obtained during his tenure as executive chairman and director of Tata Sons.

Responding to the notice, Mistry’s office said: “The Tata letter, termed a notice, is a request not to draw the attention of courts and tribunals to documents and records on the ground that they are confidential in nature.”

“Neither will we comment in public nor will we provide our correspondence to the media to make news. We will focus on the real and core issues in the relevant forums alone,” Mistry’s office said in an official statement.

“That their letters claiming confidentiality have been widely circulated to the media is ironical.

“We believe such conduct is unbecoming and interferes with justice administration,” it added.

Mistry office also said an affidavit has been filed in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) today, as sought by the tribunal. However, it did not provide details of the affidavit.

Published on December 29, 2016
null
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor