InvestorQ : Who do you think stands a better chance in the legal battle between Mistry and Tatas and what is the solution you see?
Sam Eswaran made post

Who do you think stands a better chance in the legal battle between Mistry and Tatas and what is the solution you see?

Answer
image
swati Bakhda answered.
1 year ago
Follow

The NCLAT order may have been a tad unfair because the removal of Mistry was by majority vote of the board of directors. Tatas may have a point here. According to the representation made by the Tata group some of the charges made by the NCLAT are based on a selective reading of the correspondence between Ratan Tata and Mistry. In fact, Mistry had alleged interference from Ratan Tata in the day to day functions of Tata Sons, although he was the non-executive chairman of the group. In addition, Mistry had also alleged that some of the investments were open to uncomfortable questions. The Tatas have alleged that Mistry had given room for conflict of interest by continuing to be involved in the family business. It was largely a concern over the culture misfit of Mistry within the Tatas. However, at this point of time it looks like the issue will drag for some more time.

The real answer would be to put an end to the fracas. We have seen such ownership issues cropping up within the Birla group and also the Bajaj group. Therefore, corporate battles are nothing new in India and most such battles have been sorted out amicably in the past. It would be in the larger interests off the Tata group to get this issue sorted out with the Mistry family across the table. As the Tata group has pointed out, it cannot afford to take rash decisions as it has a market cap of over $130 billion for the group and employs millions across India and abroad. The battle with Mistry is essentially a battle for control and that needs to be sorted out. At the end of the day, the Tatas are custodians of the brand. Mistry family has benefited substantially from its Tata investment. It may be time for amicable solutions!

11 Views

image
swati Bakhda answered.
1 year ago
Follow

The NCLAT order may have been a tad unfair because the removal of Mistry was by majority vote of the board of directors. Tatas may have a point here. According to the representation made by the Tata group some of the charges made by the NCLAT are based on a selective reading of the correspondence between Ratan Tata and Mistry. In fact, Mistry had alleged interference from Ratan Tata in the day to day functions of Tata Sons, although he was the non-executive chairman of the group. In addition, Mistry had also alleged that some of the investments were open to uncomfortable questions. The Tatas have alleged that Mistry had given room for conflict of interest by continuing to be involved in the family business. It was largely a concern over the culture misfit of Mistry within the Tatas. However, at this point of time it looks like the issue will drag for some more time.

The real answer would be to put an end to the fracas. We have seen such ownership issues cropping up within the Birla group and also the Bajaj group. Therefore, corporate battles are nothing new in India and most such battles have been sorted out amicably in the past. It would be in the larger interests off the Tata group to get this issue sorted out with the Mistry family across the table. As the Tata group has pointed out, it cannot afford to take rash decisions as it has a market cap of over $130 billion for the group and employs millions across India and abroad. The battle with Mistry is essentially a battle for control and that needs to be sorted out. At the end of the day, the Tatas are custodians of the brand. Mistry family has benefited substantially from its Tata investment. It may be time for amicable solutions!

0 Views