New Delhi: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday restored former Tata Group Chairman Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of the Tata Sons, the holding company of Tata Group, news agency PTI reported. The report also added that the tribunal held the appointment of N Chandra as Executive Chairman illegal. However, the tribunal also mentioned that the restoration order will be operational only after four weeks, the time allowed to Tatas to file an appeal.

A two-member NCLAT Bench headed by chairperson Justice S J Mukhopadhaya delivered its judgement over the petitions moved by Mistry and the two investment firms - Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corp - challenging his removal from the group. The Appellate Tribunal had reserved its order in July this year, after completing its marathon hearing over the issue.

Earlier, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had dismissed the petitions filed by the two investment firms Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corp challenging Mistry' removal.

Later, Mistry had also personally approached the NCLAT over the NCLT order. In October 2016, Mistry, the sixth chairman of Tata Group, was ousted from his position. Mistry had taken over the reins of the company in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement.

The Mistry camp had challenged the July 9 order of the Mumbai bench of the NCLT which dismissed the pleas against his removal as Tata Sons chairman, as also the allegations of rampant misconduct on part of Ratan Tata and the company's board.

A special bench of the tribunal had held that the board of directors at Tata Sons was “competent" to remove the executive chairperson of the company. The NCLT bench had also said that Mistry was ousted as chairman because the Tata Sons' Board and its majority shareholders had “lost confidence in him".

Two months after his removal, Mistry's family-run firms approached the NCLT as minority shareholders, against Tata Sons, Ratan Tata, and some other board members. Mistry in his pleas primarily argued that his removal was not in accordance with the Companies Act and that there was rampant mismanagement of affairs across Tata Sons.