Cyrus Mistry behaved like Vibhishan of Ramayana, a traitor who backstabbed the company: Tata Sons's counsel

Among many things that raised eyebrows in a two-hour argument at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Tata Sons vs Cyrus Mistry's case, Mistry being called a traitor and a backstabber came as a surprise.

Tata's legal counsel termed Mistry as 'traitor', and a director who is 'backstabbing' the company by 'leaking information'.

Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tata Sons referred to Mistry as 'Vibhishana from the Ramayana'.

Also read: TCS veteran Natarajan Chandrasekaran replaces Cyrus Mistry as new Tata Sons chairman

In his argument, Singhvi explained the reason behind the urgency to remove Cyrus Mistry from Tata Sons board. He said that Mistry had started a process of deliberate and selective leaks intended to damage the Tata Group, which is nothing but backstabbing.

NCLT reserved its order till January 18 on a contempt petition filed by two Cyrus Mistry companies against Tata Sons.

Also read: Cyrus Mistry steps down from all Tata Group company boards

The two firms had moved the tribunal after Tata Sons called an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on February 6 to remove Cyrus Mistry from its board.

LEAK TO IT DEPARTMENT

Singhvi also submitted details of communication between Mistry and the Income Tax (IT) department.

In support, he presented a letter dated January 12, written by Cyrus Mistry to the IT department, where the ousted chairman highlighted that the Tata trustees were interfering in functioning of Tata Sons in violation of provision of the Income Tax Act.

Singhvi alleged, that Mistry was going extra miles to give "additional information" to the investigative agency, with an assurance that he would cite some more information.

The IT department had called for an explanation from Tata Sons seeking whether the trusts were involved in activities other than charitable purposes.

Also read: Cyrus Mistry's conduct caused enormous harm to company, stakeholders: TCS

"The IT notices were to obtain information whether these Tata Trusts are operating only for the benefit of public charity or they are in any form running the company or influencing the decision of the company", Mistry's counsel Janak Dwarakadas said.

Mistry received the first notice on November 27, second notice on November 29, a reminder notice on December 13, and final notice on December 20, under section 175, 176 of IPC, which invite imprisonment.

This time, the IT department had warned the directors of facing stringent action as per the law, if they do not comply with the request of information.

Also read: Ratan Tata does not speak the truth: Cyrus Mistry

"In fear of action and keeping the stakeholders of Tata Sons under perspective, Mistry replied to the exemption wing of IT dept", Dwarakadas told NCLT.

He further added, "Now Tatas are making allegations that Mistry backstabbed the company, which is nothing but the gravest act of oppression".

NCLT RESERVES ORDER ON MISTRY'S PETITION

The contempt petition has urged the tribunal to direct Tata Sons not to remove Mistry from its board of directors. Mistry's legal team argued that the decision to call the EGM (on Feb 6) was against the spirit of the December 22 order, which intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delays.

In reply, Singhvi argued saying the contempt petition was an abuse of process, as it was implicit from the December 22 order that no additional filings would be made either at the NCLT or any high court, pending a final hearing, and nothing else.

Also read: Removal of Cyrus Mistry won't be all that easy

Also read: To state that I acted against 'Tata values' is mischievous: Cyrus Mistry

Calling petitioner's assertion an "ambush argument" and an "attempt to gag by stealth", Singhvi urged the tribunal to dismiss the contempt petition and award costs to Tata Sons.

The NCLT has reserved the order on Mistry's Contempt Petition till January 18.