The Supreme Court will hear in open court on March 9 the review petition filed by Shapoorji Pallonji Group challenging the top court’s verdict in the dispute between Tata Sons Limited and Cyrus Mistry in which the Court had ruled in favour of Tatas.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said, “Applications seeking oral hearing of the Review Petitions are allowed. List the review petitions on Wednesday, March 9, 2022.”
Justice Ramasubramanian, however, passed the dissenting order saying the grounds raised in the plea do not fall within the parameters of the review.
“With utmost respect, I regret my inability to agree with the order. I have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and I do not find any valid ground to review the judgment. The grounds raised in the Review Petitions do not fall within the parameters of a review and hence the applications seeking oral hearing deserve to be dismissed,” Justice Ramasubramanian said in his dissenting opinion.
The order was passed on February 15.
The apex court in its March 26, 2021 judgment had set aside the December 2019 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the Chairperson of Tata Sons Limited.
The NCLAT, in its December 2019 judgment, had held that the proceedings of the Board meeting of Tata Sons held on October 24, 2016, removing Cyrus Mistry as Chairperson was illegal.
Shapoorji Pallonji Group and Cyrus Mistry had approached the apex court in April 2021, seeking a review of its March 26 judgment endorsing the Tata Son’s decision to remove him as the chairperson.
Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position in October 2016. He had taken over as the chairman in December 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. N Chandrasekaran later took over as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons.
A bench of then Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and Ramasubramanian in the judgment had said the ouster of Mistry not only as Executive Chairman but also Director was justified.