For a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8, the persons represented must have a common interest, grievance, and benefit from the relief sought.

This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicants (original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 9) for revocation of the leave granted to the Plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) in the suit.

2. The short facts of the case, which led the Applicants to take out the Chamber Summons, may be stated as follows :

2.1 The Plaintiffs claim to be shareholders of one or more of various NSE and BSE listed companies belonging to Tata Group of Companies, which are arraigned as Defendant Nos. 21 to 27 to the suit. The present suit is filed purportedly as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code on behalf of “all the non-promoter shareholders” of Defendant Nos. 21 to 27, “who have all been similarly affected by reason of the illegal actions that have been taken at the behest of Defendant No.1 by Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 9 and 12 to 20”. Defendant No.1 is the Director and interim Chairman of Defendant No.2, Tata Sons Ltd., which is said to be a “core investment company” that holds shares in companies of the Tata Group and oversees their governance, whilst Defendant Nos. 12 to 20 are, respectively, Tata Sons Ltd. and its Directors, and Trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and/or Sir Dorabje Tata Trust, which trusts together hold about 66 percent of the paidup capital of Tata Sons Ltd.

2.2 The grievance of the Plaintiffs is about the purported illegal ouster of one Cyrus Mistry from his position as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Ltd. and appointment of Ratan Tata (Defendant No.1) in his place as the interim Chairman, both of which actions are said to be contrary to the Articles of Association of Tata Sons Ltd. and in total disregard of corporate governance and disclosure norms and against the best interest of public shareholders such as the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that after the ouster of Mistry and appointment of Tata in his place, Tata Sons Ltd. abused its position as a dominant shareholder and holding company in the Tata group to cause the listed companies, namely, Defendant Nos. 21 to 27, to toe its line in removing or ousting Mistry as their Chairman and taking steps for his removal from their respective Boards. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that all these actions led to a crash in the share prices of various Tata Companies including Defendant Nos.21 to 27. The Plaintiffs set out by way of illustration the closing prices on the stock exchanges of shares of Defendant Nos. 21 to 27 as of 24 October, 2016 (the date of ouster of Mistry from Tata Sons) and as of 6 December 2016 (in the aftermath of his ouster and steps taken by the group companies for his removal/ouster as chairman/director). It is submitted that there is a collective loss or erosion in value of shares of over Rs.41,000 crores in Defendant Nos. 21 to 27 companies. The Plaintiffs, accordingly, pray for a declaration that the removal of Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons was illegal and contrary to the interest of shareholders of the Tata Group of companies. The Plaintiffs also pray for nullification of various resolutions/meetings concerning the ouster of Mistry either as chairman or director of Defendant Nos. 21 to 27. The Plaintiffs also claim damages in the sum of about Rs.41,832 crores for the Plaintiffs and other non-promoter members of various Tata Group of companies “including the non-promoter shareholders of Defendant Nos. 21 to 27”.

2.3 By an ex-parte order dated 9 December 2016 passed in Judges Order No. 215 of 2016, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code enabling the Plaintiffs to sue the Defendants on behalf, or for the benefit, of numerous persons having the same interest in the suit.

2.4 This leave is sought to be revoked by the Defendants named above on various grounds including lack of commonality of interest among the Plaintiffs and other 'non-promoter shareholders' of Defendant companies, who, it is submitted, do not in fact from a cla