Nusli Wadia files defamation case against Tata Sons, Ratan Tata
Wadia has claimed that the grounds on which he is being sought to be removed from various Tata companies as independent director have tarnished his reputation and will affect his goodwill in business circlesbusiness Updated: Dec 23, 2016 18:40 IST
Industrialist Nusli Wadia has filed a criminal defamation complaint against Tata Sons, Ratan Tata and the board of directors of the Tata Group, for hurting his reputation by making false allegations.
According to the criminal complaint filed with the additional chief magistrate, Mumbai, by Abad Ponda, counsel for the complainant, “the defamatory and offending contents of special notices (issued by Tata Sons for convening special shareholder meetings) have caused severe prejudice to the reputation and goodwill of the complainant as also affected his status as an independent director not only in the Tata Group companies, but as a director in various other companies; and will continue to have a cascading effect on the complainant’s reputation and goodwill in business circles within India and abroad.”
Tata Sons in their notices for the EGMs had said that Wadia is being sought to be removed for his collusion with ousted chairman Cyrus Mistry and for acting against the interests of the boards of group companies.
Based on these notices, at the recently-held EGMs of Tata Steel, Tata Motors shareholders of these companies voted Wadia out. Shareholders of Tata Chemicals are voting on Friday on a similar resolution.
Apart from Tata Sons and Ratan Tata, the complaint names Tata Sons board members Ajay Piramal, Amit Chandra, Ishaat Hussain, Nitin Nohria, Ranendra Sen, Vijay Singh, Venu Srinivasan, Ralph Speth, N Chandrasekaran and FN Subedar.
The complaint has been filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant provisions of the Act, which cover criminal act with common intention. The provisions of this section are punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both.
The complaint sought the court’s direction for “compensation as per the provisions of Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, that accused be directed to pay cost of the litigation in pursuing the present complaint as per provisions of Section 359 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and for grant of any other and further relief as the court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present complaint.”