Cyrus Mistry: Reluctant fighter chalks up shock victory in Tata feud

“I have been impressed with the quality and calibre of his participation, his astute observations and his humility. He is intelligent and qualified to take on the responsibility being offered,” Ratan Tata had said when Mistry’s appointment was announced in 2011.

It had taken some bit of persuasion from the Tata icon himself, to convince Mistry to take up the responsibility to lead the conglomerate. But once in, Mistry is said to have taken up the top job in earnest.

Fast forward to October 2016. Mistry was also a reluctant fighter.

Though he had been just ousted as the Tata Sons chairman,  Mistry’s first instinct was not to wage a war. But the opinion changed as the spat became increasingly toxic and played out in the public.

While Tata Sons charged Mistry of misleading the company to get selected as Chairman, retracting on  promises and concentrating powers, the ousted chief said he was made to be felt like an ‘outsider,’ and went on to raise serious corporate governance issues at the Group.

Mistry, despite out of the corner office at Bombay House, continued to remain in the Board of several Tata companies. And then - advised by his family - he went to the courts. He was eventually forced out of all the Tata companies.

Two months after his exit from Bombay House top post, in December 2016, Mistry family’s two investment firms, Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments Corporation, moved NCLT challenging his removal from Bombay House, and alleging oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement by Tata Sons.

The battle, which played out in on the front pages initially, soon lost some its interest, as it looked like the Tata side had managed to wrest its position in the courts. The NCLT in multiple hearings dismissed arguments made by the Mistry firms. In July 2018, it dismissed Mistry’s plea against his removal.

Though he appealed against the order at the NCLAT, which concluded its hearing in May this year, it appeared that the Tata Group would yet come out on top yet again in this corporate battle.

That is why the December 18 order from the NCLAT, evoked extreme emotions. While the Tata camp is said to have been shocked, and even speechless for sometime, the Mistry side “was surprised.” Says an executive close to Mistry: “We were prepared for both. Still the verdict is a pleasant surprise.”

In his statement, Mistry took the moral high ground. “Today’s judgement is not a personal victory for me, but is a victory for the principles of good governance and minority shareholders…is a vindication of my stand.”

The Tata Group, on the other hand, was circumspect, and also underlined its surprise at the decision. “The NCLAT order appears to even go beyond the specific reliefs sought by the Appellant,” the Group said, likely referring to the fact that Mistry had only wanted to be reinstated as director, and not as group chairman.

While the Tatas will approach the Supreme Court and appeal against the NCLAT order, it will be intriguing to watch out what Mistry does, irrespective of what the Apex Court decides.

“He had always maintained that he is not after the chairman post,” said an executive close to him. Even if he doesn't return at the corner seat, both Mistry, and his family, will look to get back the Director chair at Tata Sons.

The spat

The exit had preceded months of simmering differences between Mistry and Ratan Tata.

The difference had initially caught the industry by surprise, as Mistry had spent a year under Tata in the transition period, before eventually taking over at the helm. The two also had close family ties that go back over a century. One of Mistry’s sister is married to Noel Tata, Ratan Tata’s half brother.

The differences were professional, and were across layers. It mattered that even as Mistry chaired the Group, Ratan Tata continued to head the Tata Trusts, the custodian and the largest shareholder of the conglomerate.

What were the differences about?

One, on strategic decisions. These included the future course for Corus, which was later renamed Tata Steel Europe. The $13 billion acquisition was led by Ratan Tata, but was done in later for several reasons, including adverse economic conditions. It was clear that while Mistry wanted to sell off the units, Tata wanted to give it more time.

The two also differed on the Tata Nano, a dream project of the group patriarch, who also didn’t approve some of the initiatives by Mistry in consumer space. This included plans to tie up with US pizza chain Little Ceasars.

The two also had differing views on some key appointments, especially in Tata Sons.

 What next

For both, Ratan Tata and Cyrus Mistry, the spat will always have a big part in their legacies. Either of the sides could claim victory over the other, or a higher moral ground.

But now, it is up to the courts to end it.