Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde assembles.
Hearing commences.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY
Hearing to resume today in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate CA Sundaram to continue arguments on behalf of Shapoorji Pallonji firms.
Follow this thread for live updates from court.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
#SupremeCourt #tatamistry
Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde assembles.
Hearing commences.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
CJI SA Bobde announces that over the weekend he discovered his son who is practicing in Mumbai has been appearing for the last 2 years in a slum rehabilitation matter for a subsidiary company of Shapoorji Pallonji group.
@tatatrusts
CJI asks whether Harish Salve, Dr Singhvi or CA Sundaram has any objections to CJI hearing the matter.
None of them object. The same is recorded by the Court.
Hearing continues.
#SupremeCourt
CJI says such issues could cause potential problems in future.
Sundaram continues with his arguments.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
Sundaram citing Articles of Tata Sons to show the supremacy of the Board.
Article 121A was introduced to ensure that certain matters had to necessarily have Board approval.
#SupremeCourt #TataSons
SP group also voted in favour of A 121 due to the relationship of trust they had with Tata Sons.
SP group could not have conceived that the article would be used against them: Sundaram.
#tatasons #SupremeCourt
Discussion on interest that Ratan Tata had in Ola/ Uber
Sundaram says he had a personal interest in Ola
CJI Bobde: Does it mean he had business interest
Dr. Singhvi says he wanted to have Tata cars used in Ola and Uber and not just Ola as suggested by Mistry
CJI Bobde: Mr. Sundaram, you must bear in mind that this is a private company. Our experience with such companies is that they have heads of families controlling, giving directions etc. Birlas, Tata all have such structures.
Your SP Group might also have it.
CJI Bobde: What is wrong in head of family wanting information or wanting to control decisions.
@tatatrusts
@TataCompanies
Sundaram: This company owns many listed companies running to 65 lakh crores with public shareholders. So there should be some kind of independence in decision making.
If they wanted to keep a family affair, they should have remained so instead of making it public
A public charitable trust cannot legally run such companies. That is why it needs it be "board run": CA Sundaram.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
#SupremeCourt
They cannot use the Articles to claim that they have absolute right over affairs of the company: CA Sundaram
Bench rises. Hearing to continue tomorrow.
@tatatrusts
#TataSons #SupremeCourt
#TataSons @tatatrusts @TataCompanies @RNTata2000
#cyrusmistry
https://t.co/gMD5CxzO66
More from Bar & Bench
More from Law
We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
The entire first part of the hearing related to messages sent by certain individuals from the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group seeking cooperation with trans allies at Garden Court. So far all the discussion has been about whether their names must remain redacted.
— LGB Alliance (@ALLIANCELGB) February 11, 2021
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
You May Also Like
@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the
chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project
starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".
P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!
https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the
chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project
starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".
P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!
https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
