This article will provide a glimpse of the Tata – Mistry feud that shook the roots of the Corporate World in India with the sudden ouster of Shri Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as chairman and consequently as the Board of Directors of Tata Sons (Private) Ltd. It will further talk about the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in favour of Tata Sons, the reliefs provided by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group and finally the end of the turmoil with Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of the Tata Sons.
This Article will also provide an analysis on whether the reconversion of Tata Sons from a public company into a private company was in sync with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (2000) and the Companies Act, 2013. It further states that TATA Sons was incorporated as a private company but became a public company not by choice but by virtue of Section 43-A (1A) of the 1956 Act. It is pertinent to note that the concept of deemed to be a public company in Section 43 A was removed by Act 53 of 2000 but it amended section 3 (1)(iii) by inserting an additional sub-clause, “(d)” along with sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). The AOA of the Tata Sons complied with all the sub-clauses but not sub-clause (d). The 2013 Act reinstated the definition of the term ‘private company” under Section 2 (68). The AOA of the Tata Sons satisfied the requirements of Section 2(68) of the2013 Act. Therefore, continued to be a private company.
The Supreme Court in the light of the above stated that the request made by Tata Sons for amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation and thereby the action taken by the Registrar of companies were perfectly in order.