Tata Sons v Cyrus Mistry - Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day-6]

Bench has risen. The matter is listed for tomorrow.

CJI: Sacrifice some time Mr. Divan tomorrow.

Salve: On our side Only one lawyer argued. Two eminent seniors have argued from their side. From one side atleast we should get 40 minutes to advance our arguments.

Divan summarizes his arguments.

CJI: there is not doubt about stability of their relationship.

Divan: this is exactly the point your lords. Thank you. Even the NCLAT records that this falls so point short of Tata Group with the kind of stature.

Salve interrupts: These are new arguments and new documents that have come on record. 

CJI: can you tell us tomorrow that is there any article about irregularity in meetings or non compliance in Board?

Divan agrees.

"The events are reflective of utmost good faith and a strong bond between two partners" he continues. 

Divan: We have served for 24 years as director due to full faith and trust between parties. The only thing we asked was a place on board and the Companies Aft, 2013 recognizes it. 

Divan now reads out the timeline of events showing excellent relationship between SPG and Tata Group.

Divan refers to Bombay Public Trust Act under which these trusts are registered and classifies the course of action. He argues on the misuse of AoA.

"Misuse of Article 121 and 121A to demand pre-consultation and breach of fiduciary duties by directors on board, failure to act in their independent judgment and breach of standards of equity." 

Divan: A trust has no independent relevance as per law. If you are a public trustee, you are directly hit by these provisions. And that was the circumstance in which SPG came in.