- 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
RoC May Classify Tata Sons As ‘Public Company' Soon Since Officials Don’t Wish To Risk Contempt By Defying NCLAT
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Registrar of Companies (RoC) is likely to change the classification of Tata Sons to a ‘public company’ from a ‘private company’ and it is studying the recent National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).The idea is to complete the conversion process immediately in order to not defy the NCLAT order as that would amount to contempt of court.In its 172-page...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Registrar of Companies (RoC) is likely to change the classification of Tata Sons to a ‘public company’ from a ‘private company’ and it is studying the recent National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The idea is to complete the conversion process immediately in order to not defy the NCLAT order as that would amount to contempt of court.
In its 172-page order reinstating Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as executive chairman of Tata Sons, the NCLAT had termed the conversion of Tata Sons into a private company ‘illegal’.
The NCLAT had stated that proper procedures as laid out in Section 14 of the Companies Act, 2013 were not followed, and hence the permission of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had not been taken.
Incidentally, Mistry’s legal team is believed to be in touch with RoC officials to ensure the change happens quickly.
There is also a possibility that Tata Sons may move the Supreme Court against the part of the NCLAT order that termed that the change in classification by the RoC as illegal.