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

"This conduct takes away the whole purpose of Tata Sons and Companies Act, 2013." he continued 

Sundaram refers to a statement by Ratan Tata on the issue of family run Company "Trustees of Tata Trust will operate in the interest of this company. This doesn't end on anyone having named as "Tata".

"This suggests that this is not a family Company, lordship" Sundaram argues.

"Just three months prior to the removal of Cyrus Mistry, the meeting was convened. However, in the meeting, no prior consultation was made with R3." Sundaram argues

"The law requires the Board of Directors of this in house committee to act as independent directors acting on information regarding past, present and future incidents." Sundaram continues.

Sundaram refers to the recommendation of Nomination Renumeration Committee set up under the statutory requirement of sec. 178 of Companies Act, 2013.

Sr. Adv. Sundaram continues his arguments on interpretation of Article 121A of AoA and the point of pre consultation

Tata Sons v. Cyrus Mistry

The bench assembles. Hearing has commenced.