Tata Sons V Cyrus Mistry -Live Updates From Supreme Court(Day 5)

"There is no prayer made by you for him to be included as a nominee in the board." CJI said 

"We see there might be some interest for the NCLAT in finding it as an illegal removal" CJI remarks laughingly. 

"We are not seeking pre appointment of Cyrus Mistry. That has been dealt by the NCLAT for it being as an illegal removal as per Labour Laws. In fact, Mistry never said that he now wants to become a chairman again. That is not the prayer here" he argues 

"When Cyrus Mistry was appointed as Executive Chairman, he was a shareholder as well as an insider." he argues

"Mistry's earlier family also served and worked with the family." he argues. He now refers to the statement by Ratan Tata saying that he has greatly valued the contribution of SP group, as a large shareholder and applauding their trust. 

"In January 1965 less than a month after Tata trust was deprived of voting rights, SP group had then held 64% rights. The majority can demand to sell shares on 75% as per the provisions." Sundaram on previous connection and deep relationship between Mistry and Tata Sons. 

CJI: What was the personal relationship between Cyrus Mistry and Ratan Tata?

Sundaram: Ratan Tata's half brother is married to Cyrus Mistry's sister. Connections are personal also.

Sundaram apologizes. He continues reading the relevant paras of the judgment dealing with quasi partnership.

CJI: you did not tell us the relevant page. You don't know the name of the Judge. How can you refer to a judgment and not know the page?

"I wasn't permitted to do so, lordships. " Sundaram replied