Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd vs Tata Sons Ltd

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(NCLAT) 265

BALVINDER SINGH, S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA
Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Tata Sons Ltd – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. C.A. Sundaram and Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocates with Shri Somasekhar Sundaresn, Ms Rohini Musa, Shri Manik Dogra, Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Mrs Sonali Jaitley Bakhshi, Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Mr. Apurva Diwanji, Mr. Ruzbeh Mistry, Mr. Ravi Tyagi, Mr. Shubhanshu Gupta, Ms. Sanya Kapoor, Mr. Gunjan Shah, Mr. Parag Sawant and Mr. Akshay Doctor, Advocates
For the Respondent:Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Amit Sibal and Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocates with Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Mr. Anupn Prakash, Ms. Eesha Mohapatra, Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Aditya Shankar, Mr. Arjun Sharma, Mr. Arvind Chari, Mr. Sidharth Sharma, Mr. Siddharta Kalita and Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Advocates, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Nitesh Jain, Mr. Sayak Maity, Mr Rohan Batra, Mr Arjun Sharma, Ms. Reena Choudhary and Mr. Kostubh Devnani, Advocates Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Nitesh Jain, Mr. Sayak Maity, Mr Arjun Sharma, Mr. Rohan Batra, Mr. Kostubh Devnani and Ms. Reena Choudhary, Advocates Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi and Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocates Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saswat Patnaik, Mr. Aditya Panda, Mr. Ashwin Kumar D.S. and Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. This common judgment disposes of two appeals against two different orders, passed in one Company Petition.

2. The appellants Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Sterling Investment Corporate Pvt. Ltd., both shareholders of 1st Respondent Company – Tata Sons Limited, preferred Company Petition No. 82 of 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) under Sections 241, 242 and 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging continuing act of ‘Oppression & Mismanagement’ of members of 1st Respondent along with an application seeking Interim Relief.

3. On 22nd December 2016, the Tribunal passed a consent order. During the pendency of the same, the 1st Respondent issued notice on 5th January 2017 calling for Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the 1st Respondent Company on 6th February 2017 with subject of business being removal of 11th Respondent – Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as Director of the 1st Respondent Company. The Contempt Petition alleging violation of Tribunal’s Order was filed by appellants with an additional affidavit including the action of the 1st, 14th, 17th and 20th Respondents. During the pend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(NCLAT) 265

BALVINDER SINGH, S.J.MUKHOPADHAYACyrus Investments Pvt Ltd – AppellantVersusTata Sons Ltd – Respondent

Cases Referred (33)

BALVINDER SINGH, S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA
Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Tata Sons Ltd – Respondent