Unsurprisingly, former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry opposes the appointment of Natarajan Chandrasekaran as his successor and may even be preparing to open another legal front challenging the decision, sources have told Indian media.
A day before the board of Tata Sons met to consider Chandrasekaran as the chairman last week, Mistry shot off an angry letter to his fellow board members challenging the legality of the appointment, Economic Times of India's Autos (ET) section reported.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
"Unlike the October board meeting when the decision to sack Mistry was not mentioned in the board agenda circulated before, this time the members were aware of what to expect. Mistry is still a director of Tata Sons and the agenda papers were circulated to him as well. That prompted the mail from him," an official aware of the communications told the paper which noted Mistry did not physically attend the board meeting the following day.
Mistry – only the second group chairman without the Tata surname – was sacked on 24 October, ET added. He has already challenged the decision in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). In his petition, Mistry alleged collusion between Tata Sons and Tata Trusts and oppression of minority interests at the $103bn Indian conglomerate which makes everything from salt to steel to cars.
In his letter to board members on 11 January 11, Mistry argued that Chandrasekaran's appointment was illegal considering the matter was still sub-judice. Tata wnt on with the board meeting after taking legal advice.
"The Tata Sons board meeting held on 12 January, 2017 and the appointment of N Chandrasekaran as chairman of Tata Sons have been done as per the company's articles of association and relevant laws," a Tata Sons spokesperson told ET.
Sources close to Mistry said that he was not comfortable attending the board meet since the Tatas had violated undertakings given by them in court.
"At this stage, we do not wish to discuss next steps in terms of legal strategy," sources close to Mistry told ET.
