Stating that he had treated Tata "with the respect and dignity that he can command", Mistry said: "Indeed, a retired chairman can always feel that his "legacy" is under threat. But a retired chairman can also move on without feeling insecure about his legacy and have the emotional stature to know that what was once a right decision at one point in time may not be a right decision at another point in time."
"Mr Ratan Tata is reported to have replied that 'the answer will probably go with me to my grave'. Therefore, the impression sought to be created was that there was something unspeakable underlying his inexplicable and unreasonable conduct.
"More importantly, the signal was that Mr. Ratan Tata had an absolute right to do as he willed without having to explain himself to anyone," Mistry wrote.
More From This Section
He also accused Tata and former Vice-Chairman of Tata Sons N A Soonawala, as trustees of Tata Trusts, of "abusing" veto rights of Trustee-Nominated Directors to dictate to the directors on how Tata Sons should conduct itself.
"They (Tata and Soonawala) interpreted the Articles of Association to mean that they could call for information and seek discussions on any subject they considered material. In the view of these trustees, the Board of Tata Sons was answerable to them and through the Trustee-Nominated Directors, they could not only call for such information but also dictate what decisions must be taken by Tata Sons," Mistry said.
Mistry said when he took charge as Executive Chairman, the Articles of Association of Tata Sons were modified to ensure that certain decisions relating to operating companies of the Tata Group were mandatorily placed before the Tata Sons Board.