- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Bombay Dyeing Chairman Nusli Wadia has withdrawn all defamation cases including the Rs 3000- crore suit for damages against Tata Group Chairman Emeritus Ratan Tata and others in the Supreme Court.A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde allowed Wadia to withdraw the petition in the top court after it recorded that Ratan Tata and others had no...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay Dyeing Chairman Nusli Wadia has withdrawn all defamation cases including the Rs 3000- crore suit for damages against Tata Group Chairman Emeritus Ratan Tata and others in the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde allowed Wadia to withdraw the petition in the top court after it recorded that Ratan Tata and others had no intention to defame Wadia.
Chief Justice of India Bobde appreciated the Wadia Group chairman's gesture. “We appreciate it,” said a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant.
Tata's counsel also made a statement in the Supreme Court that there was no intention to defame Wadia.
It may be recalled that earlier, the Supreme Court had observed that it is not aware of the reason behind the allegation.
“Both of you should talk,” Chief Justice of India Bobde had suggested, insisting that the suggestion was a viewpoint.
Wadia had initiated criminal defamation proceedings after his removal as independent director in a Tata company after the unfolding of the Cyrus Mistry episode.
Ratan Tata had consistently maintained that there was no intention to defame. Senior advocate C A Sundaram told the Supreme Court that his client Wadia would be willing to withdraw the case if the opposite party withdrew its allegations.
Wadia’s counsel had insisted that the case is not against the company, but against the people who issued a special resolution requisitioning a meeting and then sent the details to the media.
Incidentally, the Bombay High Court had quashed proceedings initiated by a local court against Tata Sons' former chairman Ratan Tata along with its current chairman N Chandrasekaran and eight directors of the firm in a criminal defamation case filed by Nusli Wadia.