NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde on Monday informed the lawyers appearing in the dispute between Tata Consultancy Services Ltd and Cyrus Investments Services Ltd that his son has appeared for a subsidiary of Shapoorji Pallonji Group in a case in Mumbai.
At the beginning of the matter, the Chief Justice said that over the weekend, he had discovered that his son, who is practicing in Mumbai, has been appearing for a subsidiary of SP Group, and asked lawyers appearing in the matter whether they have any objection if he continues to hear the matter.
“Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court disclosed to the Bar that Shrinivas Bobde, learned counsel, has been appearing on behalf of a subsidiary company of Shapoorji Pallonji Group at Mumbai in a matter regarding slum rehabilitation for about two years,” said the bench also comprising Justices A. S. Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.
The lawyers, however, submitted before the bench that they no objection to the Chief Justice hearing the matter.
The bench said counsel appearing for the parties — Harish N. Salve, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, C.A. Sundaram, Mohan Parasaran, Shyam Divan, Fereshte D. Sethna, etc — have stated that they have no objection to this court deciding the present matters.
“The aforesaid joint statement made by learned counsel appearing for the parties is taken on record. Argument heard in part. List the matters on December 15, for further hearing,” said the top court.
Sundaram, who is appearing for Cyrus Mistry, submitted that in British courts, there have been instances where sons have appeared before their fathers. The Chief Justice replied also noted that Justice P.N. Bhagwati has appeared as a lawyer before his father Justice N.H. Bhagwati.
As Sundaram, citing Articles of Association of Tata Sons, submitted that they were used to ‘oppress’ the minority shareholders, the Chief Justice queried: “What is wrong in the head of family asking for information in a family run company?”
Sundaram replied that Tata Sons comprises of thousands of shareholders, and if it were to be family run, then it should not have gone public. The hearing in the matter will continue on Tuesday.
Source: IANS
