Ending 70-year partnership with Tata, Mistry questions ownership of 20 billion in assets

Rabindra Dhungel, 11 october 2020. In India, IIFL Belt India recently released its 2020 list of India’s richest people. According to the list, Cyrus Palonji Mistry and Shapur Pallanji Mistry are the 10th richest people in the world with a total wealth of Rs 76,000 crore. The statement also includes the name of Tata Sons.

The list also includes 18.4 percent shares in the name of the Tata family. Reliance Group’s Mukesh Ambani tops the list of richest people in India. His net worth is Rs 6.58 lakh crore. Which is more than the wealth of the other 5 billionaires.

The topic here is Cyrus Shapur Mistry. Looking at the details they have made public, it is seen that they are no longer working in business partnership. There is no possibility for the two families to do business together.

They are all away from propaganda and keep their internal affairs out of cover. Cyrus Mistry has been embroiled in a bitter battle with the Tatas for the past four years. By unlocking the share price of Tata Sons, he wants to restart his holding company, which has recently closed.

Mistry is young and he will give himself a new chance to start his new life again. He has assets worth about १५ 15 billion to २० 20 billion. Using such a large sum of money, they will be able to expand their empire freely. What is the problem with having enough capital? He will have to make every effort to end all ties with Tata and resolve disputes. The legal battle in the courtroom has not only harmed both Mistry and Ratan Tata, it has hurt them.

The court will now give them a chance to save their business lives by ending the abusive cases. It is expected to move forward at a faster pace.

In 2016, he was humiliatingly fired as chairman of Tata and other companies. Cyrus Mistry has been fighting in NCLT and NCLAT to regain his reputation.

The bitterness between Tata and Shapurji Pallanji is such that there was even an attempt to make money by accumulating its shares in Tata.

Mistry claims that he does not want to lose his share ownership in any way. He pleaded that any investor could refuse to go out or leave the company. Or the first right of refusal will be with Tata.

What is clear is that there is no basis for forbidding any promise. The Supreme Court upheld Tata’s position and gave the SP group a share of the money

After refusing to collect, Mistry’s family said it was time to leave. Tata had bought the shares through his lawyer in court.

The next hearing in the court is scheduled for October 28. ‘It is unfortunate in itself that the multi-decade partnership is coming to an end in this way. Ramdayo Ramdev Agrawal, who is also the co-founder of Motilal Oswal Finance Limited, says the long-running issue could tarnish the image of both sides. I hope one of them will come out victorious. ‘

Both sides have publicly expressed their intention to end decades of cordial relations.

“Once the court clarifies and the intentions of both the parties are clear, I think I am there, the issue is easy,” says Shailesh V. Haribhakti, president of Haribhakti and Associates. How to address the desire will remain.

The SP group has told the apex court that it was necessary to separate from the Tata group. This is because the potential impact of this ongoing issue could have a devastating effect on livelihoods and the economy. It also said that any underlying tangible and intangible property must be resolved in a fair and just manner.

The SP group has told the apex court that it was necessary to separate from the Tata group. This is because the potential impact of this ongoing issue could have a devastating effect on livelihoods and the economy. It also said that any underlying tangible and intangible property must be resolved in a fair and just manner.

The SP Group is requesting for the distribution of all assets, including Tata’s brand value. In this case, it is possible to appear before the court whether it is practical to go out or leave.

Generally, the distribution of assets is done in partnership. In some cases it may be different.

The principle of quasi-partnership can be applied to judge the real character of the company and the commercial reality of the situation.

According to the Companies Act, 2013, there is no special provision for quasi-partnership. Section 242 gives the right to terminate a case through a tribunal. It has also tried to look into the situation of complaints. This is known as fair and just doctrine.

Such matters include the purchase of shares of any member of the company by other members or their own share capital in connection with the purchase of such shares. As a result, the share capital may decrease.

In the past, courts have ruled that the principle of quasi-partnership is not foreign to the concept of the Act and can be applied to public limited companies. The committee has already endorsed the decision passed by the NCLAT in December on the semi-partnership petition. When it stops its move to transform Tata into a private limited company.

In the opinion of legal experts, Mistry tried and argued that Tata Sons’ relationship with Tata was not just as a financial shareholder. The company has been known as FE Dinsha Limited since its inception. The company has been in operation since 1927. That included many companies like Tata Power, Tata Steel and even good share investments were made in them. Shapurji Pallanji also owned important shares as the majority shareholder.

The SP Group had signed an agreement with JRD Tata in 1966 for land development in Pune. Ratan Tata’s father Nawal Tata had an agreement for the development of private property. The SP group bought it from Forbes. Similarly, Tata bought steels from SP Group. Shapoorji’s son Palonji and his sons Cyrus and Shapoor enjoyed a personal relationship with Tata and served on various boards of the company for more than five decades.

Most of the construction agreements with Tata were implemented by the SP group. There were 18 big companies in it. They have existed since 1880. In the early days, the SP group had supplied water to the city of Mumbai by constructing water storage tanks in the Malabar area of ​​Mumbai.

Based on the course of events, the court has to decide whether Mistry’s relationship can be seen as a semi-partnership and whether he will be able to dispose of the property later. Resolving disputes is only one possibility for ending a discriminatory relationship or another.

It does not include independent advice or the formation of an arbitration committee or a decision by the Supreme Court.
Normally, the court leaves it to the parties concerned to decide on the basis of fair and equitable evaluation, but in this case, the court should look into the matter as the largest industrial group is involved.

To take short measures to resolve this issue in the interest of both the parties. In that, the court looks at justice when evaluating. It is important to reach an agreement between the parties before filing a case.