Anushka Mansharamani
C.A. Sundaram, representing the Shapoorji Pallonji firms continued with his argument and aimed to answer the CJI S.A. Bobde question on how he could conclude that the NCLAT passed the order of winding up the company under the just and equitable clause.
C.A. Sundaram firstly cited articles of the Tata Sons to indicate the supremacy of the Board and mentioned Article 121 A which stated that certain matters would necessarily need the Boards approval.
He further justified the reason for approving the article in the first place stating that they had no idea that it would be used against them.
He further brought up the interest that Ratan Tata had in Ola/Uber as according to C.A. Sundaram he had a personal interest.
During the discussion on personal interest or business interest, Dr. Singhvi stated that “ he wanted to have Tata cars used in Ola and Uber and not just Ola as suggested by Mistry”
CJI Bobde going back to the article stated that keeping in mind it is a private company, most private companies have heads of family controlling and giving direction further questioning C.A. Sundaram
“What is wrong in the head of family wanting information or wanting to control decisions?”
C.A. Sundaram contended that as this company owns listed companies there should have been some kind of independence in the decision making process.
He further argued that if they wanted to keep it a family affair they should have remained so instead of making it public and that the public charitable trust does have the legal rights to run such countries.
He lastly stated that using such an article gives them an indirect absolute right over affairs of the company.
On that note the bench rose and the matter will be continued on 15th December, 2020.
