These days there is lots of news about Tatas. The board of directors of Tata Sons have “replaced” its chairman Cyrus Mistry with Ratan Tata. Lots of lawyers and other representatives of Tatas are giving interviews to news channels. On the other hand, Cyrus Mistry is silent. The lawyers on Tata side say since it was just a replacement, there was no need for a notice. It might be a correct legal position, but is it a correct ethical position? I heard one of the representatives of Tatas say Cyrus Mistry has failed to uphold the Tata values by substituting legal positions for the ethical ones. How ironical! Tatas have done just the same to Cyrus Mistry by replacing him without giving a notice.
In fact, they are even defaming him day-in-and-day-out on media. Whatever the circumstances, where is the occasion to make a media circus out of it? Indeed, Tatas have a superior legal position, but only in company law board: if Cyrus Mistry were to file defamation complaint and suit, these representatives might have to answer a lot. I wonder how such senior lawyers are making such frivolous comments on Cyrus Mistry. Tatas may or may not be Goliath, but Cyrus Mistry is not a David for sure. This might become interesting!