LANDMARK CASE

Tata Sons v. Cyrus Investments

(2021) 9 SCC 449 · Supreme Court of India · Corporate law

At a glance

Citation: (2021) 9 SCC 449
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Corporate law
In one line: No. Removal of a chairman is not oppression, and the NCLAT order was set aside.

1 Facts

Cyrus Mistry was removed as chairman, and his group alleged oppression and mismanagement.

2 Issue

Did the removal amount to oppression?

3 What the court decided

No. Removal of a chairman is not oppression, and the NCLAT order was set aside.

4 Why it matters

It clarified oppression and mismanagement law.

5 Think about it

What is the difference between a governance dispute and oppression?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Corporate law

Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (1996) 4 SCC 622
Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts (1986) 1 SCC 264
Salomon v. A. Salomon and Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Taylor v. Caldwell →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.