Nusli Wadia, an independent director on the boards of several Tata group companies, has sought an independent investigation into the allegations made by Tata Sons against him.
Wadia, who is facing ouster from the boards of Tata Steel and Tata Chemicals, has written to the Directors of these two companies to institute an investigation to verify the allegations as set out in the special notice issued by Tata Sons Ltd on November 10. Tata Sons had alleged that Wadia was acting in concert with ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry to influence independent directors to vote against Mistry’s removal.
Tata Sons has therefore moved a resolution to oust Wadia and Mistry from the boards of a number of group companies, including Tata Steel and Tata Chemicals. The companies have called for an EGM in December to vote on this resolution.
According to sources close to Mistry camp, the former Chairman of Tata Sons will give an oral and written presentation to the shareholders to present his case. Wadia is also expected to plead his case with the shareholders.
Wadia had earlier blamed Tata Sons for levelling allegations that are baseless, false, defamatory and libellous.
Wadia said that the special notice issued to oust him as an independent director on the boards of Tata group companies had damaged his reputation. “It is evident that you have embarked on a personal vendetta against me for discharging my duties as an independent director. You have also as a consequence, sent a message to all other independent directors that those who do not follow the Tata Sons diktat will be under threat of removal,” Wadia said in a note to Tata Sons.
Last week Tata Sons took the battle to the Mistry camp by initiating proceedings to remove Nusli Wadia and Cyrus Mistry as Directors from the boards of a number of group companies, including Tata Motors, Tata Steel and Tata Chemicals.
Wadia had backed Mistry at the Tata Chemicals board meeting. Wadia has now sought proof from Tata Sons to establish that he was acting in concert with Mistry.
Wadia added that if indeed he had succeeded in galvanising the independent directors on the boards of these companies then it is evident that all independent directors have failed in their fiduciary duty.