- 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 ]The Supreme Court has stayed a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order which had dismissed a plea filed by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) seeking modification of its verdict in the Tata-Cyrus Mistry matter.A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant agreed to hear Tata Sons Pvt Ltd's appeal...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has stayed a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order which had dismissed a plea filed by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) seeking modification of its verdict in the Tata-Cyrus Mistry matter.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant agreed to hear Tata Sons Pvt Ltd's appeal and issued notice to the parties concerned.
The Supreme Court stated that it would hear the matter along with the main plea filed by Tata Sons against the NCLAT's verdict.
It may be recalled that on January 10, 2020 the Supreme Court had stayed the NCLAT verdict restoring Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group and observed that there were “lacunae” in the order passed by the tribunal.
Earlier, in its verdict, the NCLAT had ordered the reinstatement of Cyrus Mistry as the Tata Sons' Chairman and also directed the RoC to enlist the company as a “public company”.
Later, Tata Sons moved the Supreme Court against the NCLAT judgment.