Tata v. Mistry: "Cyrus Mistry created a smokescreen of oppression and mismanagement", Ratan Tata tells Supreme Court

In his affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, Chairman Emeritus of Tata Sons, Ratan Tata has said that he is disappointed to see former Executive Director Cyrus Mistry use the "cloak of oppression and mismanagement" around his loss of office. .Tata has claimed in his affidavit filed before the Supreme Court,."The case of Mr. Cyrus Mistry with all its rambling prolixity, is essentially about the personal grievnce of a chief executive of a company for loss of office. Knowing well the limitation of such a grievance - which at the highest could be a directorial dispute or en employment dispute - Mr. Cyrus has created a smokescreen of 'oppression and mismanagement' around it."Ratan Tata's affidavit before Supreme Court.In December 2019, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Director of Tata Sons. This judgment of the Tribunal was stayed by the Supreme Court in January this year. The. Court had agreed to hear the appeals filed by Tata Sons, Ratan Tata and Tata Trustees on merits, and issued notices to the respondents, including Mistry. .Tata-Mistry: Supreme Court agrees to hear plea against NCLAT's rejection of RoC's modification application .A cross appeal was subsequently filed by Cyrus Mistry, who sought more relief from the Court than was granted by the NCLAT. The Supreme Court, agreeing to hear this appeal, has bunched all the appeals arising from NCLAT's December 2019 decision together..Tata-Mistry: Supreme Court agrees to hear cross appeal filed by Cyrus Mistry against NCLAT judgment seeking more relief.It is in relation to this batch of appeals that Ratan Tata has filed his affidavit. He calls Cyrus Mistry a Trojan Horse whose actions were undignified. Tata says that it is a matter of record that while the company's Board had appointed Mistry as the Executive Director, it was the same Board that nearly unanimously decided to replace him. .Mistry was first asked to step down, Tata says, pointing out the dignified manner in which such decisions are usually conveyed and gracefully accepted. It was only after Mistry declined the Board's request asking him to step down that a resolution for his ouster had to be passed, the affidavit details.."...Tata companies follow certain decorum and even the most unpleasant decisions are coveyed ina dignified manner because such decisions are never personal. The deciosion to replace Mr. Cyrus Mistry was no exception; in fact it demanded all the more care and sensitivity in how it is conveyed and recorded. That is why he was initially asked to step down on his own.".Tata says that the attribution of motives to him and the "virulent" atacks against him in each of Mistry's affidavits has pained him, considering that his personal support and role in the selection of Mistry as his successor was widely known. The decision of Mistry's ouster was neither a hasty one nor "a pleasant one", Tata says. .The case made by Mistry of "oppression and mismanagement" rests on shaky grounds, Tata argues. He further raises the question as to whether the decision to replace Mistry can validly be the basis for a shareholder's action for oppression and mismanagement "and whether such such adjudication would be within judicially manageable standards" laid down by the Court in the past..Tata's affidavit also gives a sharply worded response to Mistry's questioning of the performance of the two men at the helm of affairs at the company.."...if Mr. Cyrus Mistry seeks a certificate of his performance, I cannot bestow that on him and prudence demands that he should leave the judgment to the stakeholders. But he would not do so because he does not believe in shareholders' democracy.".Tata also says that he would like to "bow out" of any debate around his performance as Chief Executive of Tata Sons, and would neither like to defend nor endorse his performance during the tenure, in response to attacks from Mistry.