Dismissing allegations of breaching confidentiality, Cyrus Mistry has told Tata Sons that he was required by law to submit information to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). In three separate letters written by Mistry’s legal counsel, the ousted Chairman of Tata Sons said that Tata Sons intimidating him into refusing to cooperate with the legal requirements.
On December 27, Tata Sons, through its lawyers, had sent a notice accusing Mistry of breaching confidentiality clauses by making public sensitive information. The notice also wanted Mistry to “cease and desist” from sharing sensitive information he had access to, in his capacity as a director.
The notice was sent after he had moved NCLT through two family-owned firms — Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investment Pvt Ltd — seeking to protect Tata Sons from “oppression and mismanagement” under various sections of the Companies Act. Simultaneously, Mistry also sent a separate communication to the tax authorities after the DCIT sought information on certain disclosures made by him with respect to Tata group companies.
In his response, Mistry said that the notice sent by Tata tantamount to an “abetment by instigation of offences.” “We would be forwarding your letter to the DCIT along with this reply in order that the Income Tax authorities may initiate appropriate proceedings as they may deem fit,” Mistry’s lawyers said in the letter.
Tatas had termed Mistry’s actions as “Such reckless failure on your part in discharging your fiduciary, legal and contractual duties has caused irreparable harm and damage to Tata Sons and Tata Group”. In response, Mistry’s lawyers said Tatas were using this as a smokescreen to hide the real issue.
Mistry also denied that the documents and information shared with the Income-Tax Department were of confidential and sensitive in nature. “The main thrust of the letter is to incite our client by attempted intimidation into refusing to cooperate with Income Tax authorities. Tata Sons is apparently deeply aggrieved by our client’s compliance with DCIT’s requisitions to furnish information required by them under section 133(6) of Income Tax Act,” the letter, sent by law firm Maneksha & Sethna on Thursday said.
Section 133(6) enables I-T department to obtain information in connection with any pending proceeding or an enquiry.
“Your clients have castigated our client for this action on his part and have issued a caution not to repeat such actions in the future,” it added.
Maneksha & Sethna, which is representing Mistry, has addressed the letter to Tata Sons’ legal firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
The notice also accused Tata Sons of acting “manifestly and palpably” in ignorance of criminal law and provisions of I-T Act.
It also warned Tata Group of legal requisitions as it is “guilty” under sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that states omission to produce documents is a crime.