Anushka Maurya & Vivek Maurya, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
ABSTRACT
The people who live in the country are very important to building it up. Human resources are critical to a country's growth and development; similarly, corporations play a critical part in a country's finances, development, employment, and provision of high-quality products and services to its citizens. A corporation can aid in nation-building if it is properly controlled and administered. All those who assist the company in running its business are content with the company's internal policies, are not oppressed, and the company's affairs are not mismanaged: only then can the corporation assist in nation development. Under the Companies Act, 2013, we also have provisions to deal with oppression and mismanagement, just like all other civilized nations. The current provisions of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 closely resemble Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, but differ on a few points. The 2013 Act has both increased and decreased the options shareholders have for getting their money back. Corporate governance, the struggle for supremacy or control of the company, or the so-called patriarchs of the organization refusing to pass the mantle on to their successors-in-title are examples of issues that might arise in these situations. Whatever the case may be, whether the provisions of the Companies Act of 2013 have justified their inclusion in the Act in order to protect a corporation from the turbulence of a majority-minority conflict is an open question. Let's research and analyze if the Tata-Mistry scandal has enhanced the law on oppression and mismanagement, confirmed the never-ending dominance of the so-called patriarchs of the "Corporates," or given the minority battling for control the cake walk of owning 100% when you have merely 17% and wish to assassinate the original Patriarch as well as bring in a new one.
"Power and wealth aren't among my top priorities." This is a quote from a well-known figure who doesn't need an introduction. Mr. Ratan Tata (hereafter referred to as 'Mr. Tata') is one of the most successful businessmen India has ever produced. However, in the current situation, when the Tatas are embroiled in one of the most high-profile corporate courtroom battles, this statement appears to be extremely comical. A honeycomb maze all its own, the Tata group stands out in this context because of its complexity and variety. On the one side, it is made up of Tata Trust, Family, and Group Companies, and on the other, it is made up of SP Group. For more than half a century, they've worked together in complete confidence and trust.1 An investment of about 1, 00,000Crores has been made by SP Group in Tata Sons, which equates to roughly 18.37 percent ownership. After stepping down as chairman of Tata Group in 2013, Mr. Tata had faith in Mr. Mistry to lead the company to greater heights, and this faith was well-placed given that Mr. Mistry had been personally selected by Mr. Tata. Mr. Mistry was fortunate enough to have gotten such a high honor. In both India and the United Kingdom, he was considered by the Economist to be the most significant industrialist, and2 in the period of just four years, he was fired from the Tata Group's distinguished board of directors. An all-out conflict erupted between these two large Indian corporate companies after this unexpected expulsion, which struck at the very heart of the corporate governance standards.
