<p>In a relief to the Cyrus Mistry's group, the Supreme Court has decided to hear review petitions against its March 26, 2021 judgement which had upheld the decision of Tata Sons to remove him as executive chairman in 2016 and director on the board of the company.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, by a majority view of 2:1, agreed to consider the review petition filed by the Mistry's group in open court on March 9.</p>.<p>Justice Ramasubramaian has dissented with this February 15 order to consider review petition. The review petition was considered inside judges chambers as per the Supreme Court Rules.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-order-a-miscarriage-of-justice-riddled-with-errors-cyrus-mistry-in-review-petition-979610.html" target="_blank">SC order a miscarriage of justice, riddled with errors: Cyrus Mistry in review petition</a></strong></p>.<p>"Applications seeking oral hearing of the review petitions are allowed," the majority view said in the order, released on Monday.</p>.<p>Justice Ramasubramaian, however, said, "I regret my inability to agree with the order. I have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and I do not find any valid ground to review the judgment. The grounds raised in the Review Petitions do not fall within the parameters of a review and hence the applications seeking oral hearing deserve to be dismissed."</p>.<p>On March 26, 2021 the top court had approved the decision of Tata Sons to remove Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman in 2016 and director on the board of the company.</p>.<p>The February 15 order would reopen one of the most high profile and publicly-fought bitter corporate battle.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde (since retired) and Justices A S Bopanna and Ramasubramanian had then set aside the order of December 18, 2019 by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reinstating Mistry as chairman of the Tata Sons.</p>.<p>In a big setback to Mistry, the bench had then said that it was an irony that the very same person who represented shareholders owning just 18.37% of the total paid up share capital (by SP group) and yet identified as the successor to the Tatas' empire, has chosen to accuse the very same Board, of conduct, oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the minorities.</p>.<p>The Tata Group claimed that the removal of Mistry was as a result of lack of confidence and trust. But by his own subsequent conduct, Mistry "unfortunately enhanced the firepower of the management of Tata Sons, with regard to their claim relating to lack of confidence and trust," the bench had said.</p>.<p>Mistry was handpicked by chairman emeritus Ratan Tata in 2012 and sacked in 2016 as chairman of the salt-to-software conglomerate.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
<p>In a relief to the Cyrus Mistry's group, the Supreme Court has decided to hear review petitions against its March 26, 2021 judgement which had upheld the decision of Tata Sons to remove him as executive chairman in 2016 and director on the board of the company.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, by a majority view of 2:1, agreed to consider the review petition filed by the Mistry's group in open court on March 9.</p>.<p>Justice Ramasubramaian has dissented with this February 15 order to consider review petition. The review petition was considered inside judges chambers as per the Supreme Court Rules.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-order-a-miscarriage-of-justice-riddled-with-errors-cyrus-mistry-in-review-petition-979610.html" target="_blank">SC order a miscarriage of justice, riddled with errors: Cyrus Mistry in review petition</a></strong></p>.<p>"Applications seeking oral hearing of the review petitions are allowed," the majority view said in the order, released on Monday.</p>.<p>Justice Ramasubramaian, however, said, "I regret my inability to agree with the order. I have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and I do not find any valid ground to review the judgment. The grounds raised in the Review Petitions do not fall within the parameters of a review and hence the applications seeking oral hearing deserve to be dismissed."</p>.<p>On March 26, 2021 the top court had approved the decision of Tata Sons to remove Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman in 2016 and director on the board of the company.</p>.<p>The February 15 order would reopen one of the most high profile and publicly-fought bitter corporate battle.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde (since retired) and Justices A S Bopanna and Ramasubramanian had then set aside the order of December 18, 2019 by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reinstating Mistry as chairman of the Tata Sons.</p>.<p>In a big setback to Mistry, the bench had then said that it was an irony that the very same person who represented shareholders owning just 18.37% of the total paid up share capital (by SP group) and yet identified as the successor to the Tatas' empire, has chosen to accuse the very same Board, of conduct, oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the minorities.</p>.<p>The Tata Group claimed that the removal of Mistry was as a result of lack of confidence and trust. But by his own subsequent conduct, Mistry "unfortunately enhanced the firepower of the management of Tata Sons, with regard to their claim relating to lack of confidence and trust," the bench had said.</p>.<p>Mistry was handpicked by chairman emeritus Ratan Tata in 2012 and sacked in 2016 as chairman of the salt-to-software conglomerate.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
