"Everything that happened before 2018 happened at NCLT. Forget my fault, I was referring to NCLT and not NCLAT. The NCLT found on the strength of it's experience and recorded that let us only file additional affidavits. Then the case climbed one level higher. Then NCLT allowed the filing of amendment application. Hence,we filed it." he continues
Divan: to answer the question of your lordships on the prayer of representation, the answer is yes. Were there amendment applications and replies, the answer is yes.
"second application was made seeking same prayer (stay on conversion) placed in the NCLAT by CIPL and SICPL. And subsequent pleadings were exchanged." he argued
CJI: you are not answerable to what and how NCLAT does but still, you assist us on this.
Divan: NCLT was trying to decide everything on the basis of counter affidavits and replies. Then the appellate board allowed this. NCLAT doesn't have any issue with filing of amendment application. It's not that the NCLAT has been selective. It's a procedure.
Divan: Initially NCLAT gave ne permisison to file an amendment application expressly put in a prayer for representation.
CJi: what was the criteria followed by NCLAT for doing so?
Divan now refers to the prayer of admitting civil appeal in light of accepting the reasons of NCLAT judgment.
CJI: our question to you was whether there was any relief with regards to proportionate representation? Did you make a specific prayer for representation on the board?
Shyam divan now deals with the order of NCLAT. "We request you to uphold this order and the reasoning of the same. " he said
Then he referred to 24 October 2016
"No reasons for removal of Mistry were recorded. One of the directors was a tata trust nominee. Other 2 were appointed as personal nomination by Ratan Tata. Other 2 who voted for his removal had just 4 months prior to the removal praised his work. No reason was given by them on their vote. " he continues
He refers to the date of 28th june 2016,the Board didn't have any grievance from Cyrus Mistry. The board noted that Mistry in fact worked in the welfare of the company and the Board applauded his contribution. There is no agenda of removal of his termination.
He reads out 'relief sought ' wherein he focusses on CIPL and SICPL (Cyrus Investment Companies). 2 groups constituted the membership of Tata Sons. Communications between 2013 to 2016 communications show that there was complete confusion in the Board. All the decisions were taken by Ratan Tata himself.