Assignment: 2

Instructions:

• Assignment 2 is based on the following text/paragraph of case study/situational exercise etc. You first need to read this text and then answer the following MCMR i.e. Multiple choice multiple response questions.
• Number of Questions: 5
• Each question carries 2 Mark
• All Five Questions are Mandatory.
• Attempts: 1

Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. Facts of the Case The Sapoorji Pallonji Group (SP Group), led by Cyrus Mistry, owned 18.37 percent of Tata Sons Limited's total paid-up share capital. Cyrus Mistry was named as the Tata Sons' Executive Deputy Chairman for a five-year term in 2012.By the end of the year, the Board of Directors had named Cyrus as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons, effective December 29, 2012, while Ratan Tata was named Chairman Emeritus. On October 24, 2016, the Tata Sons Board of Directors issued a resolution removing Cyrus from his role as Executive Chairman of the company." Cyrus was later dismissed from the board of directors of Tata Industries Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., and Tata Teleservices Ltd., after separate shareholder votes. Following that, Cyrus resigned from a few additional board positions. Following that, two SP Group firms, Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd., filed a company petition under Sections 241, 242, and 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging mismanagement, oppression, and discrimination. The complainants also questioned Tata Sons' shift from a public to a private company." The National Company Law Tribunal ruled that Cyrus Mistry's dismissal as executive chairman was unconstitutional and ordered that he be reinstated. The Supreme Court delayed the NCLAT order in January 2020, and the verdict was postponed until December 17, 2020. The Supreme Court has now ruled that Tata Sons' conduct did not amount to minority shareholder persecution or mismanagement. Judgement:-The judgement went in the Tata Group's favour. The bench dismissed all of Cyrus Mistry's allegations of persecution and mismanagement levelled against Tata Sons Limited. A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice S A Bobde, Justice V Ramasubramanian, and Justice A S Bopanna made the judgement. On December 18, 2019, the Supreme Court postponed the ruling of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to reinstate Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of Tata Sons. The Supreme Court held that the Company Law Tribunal cannot intervene in the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition filed under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, unless the removal is oppressive, mismanaged, or done in a prejudicial manner harming the company, its members, or the public at large. The court decided that removing a person as Chairman of the Company is not a subject matter under Section 241 of the Companies Act unless it is proven to be "oppressive or harmful." Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act of 2013 do not specifically give reinstatement authority, according to the court. As a result, on December 18, 2019, the Supreme Court overturned the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order to reinstate Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of Tata Sons.

1

2 Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the judgement in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd.?

	The National Company Law Tribunal ruled in favor of Cyrus Mistry and ordered his reinstatement as executive chairman of Tata Sons.
	The Supreme Court dismissed all allegations of persecution and mismanagement against Tata Sons and ruled in their favor.
	Supreme Court held that the Company Law Tribunal can intervene in the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company
	The Supreme Court decided that adding a person as Chairman of the Company

3 Under what conditions can the Company Law Tribunal intervene in the removal of a chairman of a company?

	If the removal is proven to be oppressive or harmful.
	If the removal is challenged under Sections 41, 42, and 44 of the Companies Act.
	Members, or the public at large must harmed the company
	Done in a prejudicial manner harming the company, its members, or the public at large.

4 Which section of the Companies Act, 2013, were the allegations of mismanagement, oppression, and discrimination filed under?

	Section 221
	Section 241
	Sections 242
	Section 281

5 Which two group was Cyrus Mistry associated with in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Limited ?

	Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd
	Sapoorji Pallonji Group (SP Group)
	Aditya Birla Group
	Dhirubhai Ambani Group

6 What allegations were made by Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. against Tata Sons?

	Mismanagement
	Breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading
	Oppression and Discrimination
	Violation of intellectual property rights and patent infringement