- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED v. CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD
Factual and Procedural Background
On 26 March 2021 the Supreme Court of India allowed a batch of appeals in Civil Appeal Nos. 440-441 of 2020 involving Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) and Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. Among the respondents in those appeals was Shri Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”).
Subsequently, CPM filed Miscellaneous Application No. 849 of 2021 seeking expunction of certain adverse remarks contained in that judgment. The application was listed before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian and was heard on 19 May 2022.
During the hearing, counsel for the applicant withdrew two of the original grounds for expunction. After hearing both sides, the Court partly acceded to the request and directed deletion of specific passages from the earlier judgment, thereafter disposing of the application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should delete or expunge certain remarks made against CPM in its judgment dated 26 March 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 440-441 of 2020.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis is concise. It recorded that:
- Counsel for CPM withdrew two specific grounds set out in paragraphs 4.II.e and 4.II.l of the application, thereby narrowing the relief sought.
- Taking into consideration “the facts and circumstances pleaded” as well as CPM’s professional career, the Court exercised its discretion “out of grace” to delete six particular sentences or phrases from the earlier judgment. These deletions related to assertions that CPM had “launched an offensive,” “leaked” correspondence to the press, “set his own house on fire,” “declared an all-out war,” and similar characterisations the applicant considered detrimental.
No further legal analysis or reference to statutory provisions was recorded; the order rests on the Court’s equitable discretion to revise its own observations in the interests of justice.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Miscellaneous Application is DISPOSED OF with directions to delete six specified remarks from the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 26 March 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 440-441 of 2020. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Implications: The decision removes language deemed prejudicial to CPM from the official judgment but leaves the substantive outcome of the earlier appeals untouched. The order applies only to the parties in this case and sets no new precedent on the merits of corporate governance or oppression and mismanagement disputes.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.A. No.849 OF 2021
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.440-441 OF 2020
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This application is taken out by Shri Cyrus Pallonji Mistry, who was one of the co-respondents in the batch of appeals, allowed by this Court by a Judgment dated 26.03.2021. The relief sought in this application is to expunge/delete certain remarks found in the Judgment and highlighted in paragraph 3 of the above Miscellaneous Application.
We have heard Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Harish Salve and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/appellants in the above appeals. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant
2
agreed to withdraw two of the grounds raised in this application, one in paragraph 4.II.e and another in paragraph 4.II.l.
After considering the facts and circumstances pleaded by the applicant and taking into account his career, we, out of grace, direct the deletion of the following remarks/observations found in the Judgment dated 26.03.2021:
(i) The sentence "This acted as a trigger point for CPM, to launch an offensive" in paragraph 16.11 shall stand deleted.
(ii) The words "leaking his mail dated 25.10.2016 to the Press and" appearing in paragraph 16.25 shall stand deleted.
(iii) The sentence "A person who tries to set his own house on fire for not getting what he perceives as legitimately due to him, does not deserve to continue as part of any decision making body (not just the Board of a Company)."
appearing in paragraph 16.25 shall stand deleted.
(iv) The sentence "But CPM himself invited trouble, by declaring an all out war, which led to his removal from Directorship" in paragraph 16.31 shall stand deleted.
(v) The sentence "Thus the relief of reinstatement granted by the Tribunal, was too big a pill even for the complainant companies (and perhaps CPM) to swallow."
in paragraph 17.22 shall stand deleted.
3
(vi) The words "he set his own house on fire in" appearing in paragraph 19.48 shall stand deleted and the relevant sentence shall read as follows "CPM continued as Executive Chairman till 2016".
The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of on the above terms.
.…………....................CJI.
[N.V. RAMANA]
.…..………......................J.
[A.S. BOPANNA]
.…..………......................J.
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]
NEW DELHI
MAY 19, 2022
4
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No.849/2021 in C.A. Nos.440-441/2020 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.57759/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.57758/2021-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)
Date : 19-05-2022 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s)/ Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Adv. Applicant(s) Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish N.Salve, Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Adv.
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv.
Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Lakshya Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh P.Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Jappanpreet Hora, Adv.
Mr. L.Nidhi Ram Sharma, Adv.
For M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Harish N.Salve, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Safaya, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Anusha Ramesh, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Adv.
Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Adv.
5
Mr. Abhishek Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. Ravi Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Adv. Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv. Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sudiksha Saini, Adv. Mr. Gunjan Shah, Adv. Ms. Sanam Tripathi, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Ms. Fereshte D.Sethna, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Haaris Fazili, Adv. Ms. Aboli Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Kunal Dutt, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Ashwin Kumar D.S., Adv. Mr. J.N. Mistry, Adv. Ms. Namrata Parikh, Adv. Mr. Saswat Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Aditya Panda, Adv. Mr. Sameer Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hasan Murtaza, AOR Ms. Aditi Dani, Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
Alert