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

Sundaram: Tata Sons comprising of Tata Trust and Tata Groups etc collectively hold about 80% shares.

"Even prior to 1985 when SPG group took shares in Tata group, the relationship of trust with the company existed. After amendment of 2013 Companies Act, SP group was on boarded with Tata Sons. It was the SP group that had voting rights and was acting in the interest of Tata Sons." 

"I am a legitimate son in the case, your lords." Sundaram replies.

CJI: There is a relevant doctrine of roman law "patria protestas" which goes well in this case. Read it when you have time.

"The issue with pater familias is that we are a two group company. If this is pater familias i also need to treated equally." 

"The role of shareholders cannot be to run the affairs of the company. They can only work for the welfare of the company" he says

Sundaram: the relevant para sums up the issue of this case.

CJI: This case refers to Negotiable instruments Act. This is on a different issue.

Sundaram referring to another judgment by the Supreme Court. "All powers of management of a company are given to Board of Directors. There cannot be interference by shareholders." he reads.

"Article 121 specifically states that it's a board managed company." he argues on the independence of Board of Directors.