Tata Sons rejects Mistry allegations on Air Asia

Elias Hubbard
July 6, 2017

The court has asked them to appear before it on August 24.

A Mumbai court on Tuesday admitted a Rs500-crore criminal defamation complaint against former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry, his brother Shapoor Mistry, and directors of their companies, Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments.

The lawsuit filed with the Esplanade Metropolitan Court of Mumbai accuses Cyrus Mistry and his associates of making false and defamatory statements against Venkatramanan.

The Tata Sons, the flagship company of the Tata Group, on Wednesday, vehemently refuted the charges of Shapoorji Pallonji Group as well as by ousted chairman Cyrus Mistry of mismanagement in Air Asia India by Tata Trusts' Managing Trustee R. Venkataramanan.

This is the second attack launched from Tata Camp, after a complaint was filed by Tata Sons to SEBI against Mistry for (alleged) insider trading.

Mr Mistry had alleged about "certain fraudulent transactions of '22 crore involving non-existent parties in Indian and Singapore at Air Asia India and had stated that Venkat considered these transactions as "non-material" and "didn't encourage any further study" of it". They can now move the high court to squash the complaint.

The letter had found its way to the media, causing enormous damage to his as well as his family's reputation, claimed Venkat's complaint.

"Tata Sons is of the view that the frivolous allegations levied by Mistry and the SP Group are value destructive", the company said.

Cyrus Mistry and Ratan Tata. "The court has now issued process which means that the persons named as accused would have to be present before the court for further proceedings", said Zulfiquar Memon of MZM Legal, representing Venkataramanan. The tribunal dismissed the petition saying the investment firms have insufficient shareholding to seek a legal recourse. After several rounds of arguments at the NCLT, which lasted for almost four months, the case was held not maintainable and a waiver also not granted. The companies then appealed the tribunal's order at NCLAT, New Delhi, which is being heard now.

R Venkataramanan is being represented by counsel Parvez Memon, who had argued in the last hearing of the case that under Article 21 of the constitution, a citizen's right to life is inclusive of the right to live with dignity.

Other reports by Click Lancashire

Discuss This Article