Tata Sons on Tuesday slapped a legal notice on its ousted chairman, Cyrus P Mistry, for alleged breach of confidentiality by making public sensitive company documents including minutes of board meetings, financial information and data.

It termed attaching dozens of confidential and sensitive company documents with the petition filed by his family investment firms before the National Company Law Tribunal against his removal, as “reckless failure” in discharging of “fiduciary, legal and contractual duties” by Mistry.

b’Cyrus Mistry’

Tata Sons in the notice served through law firm, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, said “without there being any requirement to do so” the Mistry family firms “deliberately included in petition, as exhibits, confidential data, business strategies, financial information pertaining to the business affairs of Tata Sons Ltd, Tata Group Companies and Joint ventures (all such material being ‘Confidential & Sensitive Information’).”

“By passing on Confidential & Sensitive Information accessed by you in your capacity as a Director of Tata Sons to companies owned and controlled by your family… You have acted in complete violation of your confidentiality undertaking to Tata Sons, your fiduciary duties towards Tata Sons and your obligations under the Tata Code of Conduct,” it said.

b’Representative image | Source: Reuters’

Stating that it intends to exercise all legal rights and pursue all remedies available under law, the petition asked Mistry to “cease and desist” from sharing confidential and sensitive information.

Also, it wanted any document or parts which are unrelated to his petition before NCLT be suitably redacted.

Mistry’s actions have exposed Tata Sons to potential claims from third parties for breach of confidentiality, the petition said adding Tata Sons will make him liable for all such claims.

It alleged that Mistry, who was unceremoniously ousted as Chairman of Tata Sons on October 24 and subsequently forced to resign as director from key operating companies, had not only breached his legal duties as a director but also acted recklessly with the sole intent to cause harm and loss to Tata Sons.