Tatas lashed out at Cyrus Mistry on Tuesday saying 'insinuations are being imagined' -- soon after the ousted group chairman alleged that it was 'false and mischievous' to suggest that he acted on his own or without the knowledge of Ratan Tata on the Tata-Docomo matter.
"Insinuations are being imagined. The matter is sub-judice and we will not comment," a Tata group spokesperson said.
Earlier in the day, a statement by Mistry's office asserted that "insinuations that Docomo issue was handled in a manner inconsistent with Tata culture and values are baseless".
The suggestion that Ratan Tata and trustees would not have approved of the manner in which the litigation against Docomo was conducted was contrary to what transpired, it said.
All decisions on Tata-Docomo deal were taken with approval of Tata Sons Board and actions were consistent with every such collective decision, the statement added.
"Insinuations that the Docomo issue was handled under the watch of Mistry in a manner inconsistent with Tata culture and values are baseless. The suggestion that Ratan Tata and the trustees would not have approved of the manner in which the litigation was conducted is contrary to what transpired," it said.
Tata Group is entangled in a legal tussle with Japanese firm, NTT DoCoMo. DoCoMo in November 2009 acquired 26.5% stake in Tata Teleservices for about Rs 12,740 crore (at Rs 117 per share) with an understanding that in case it exits the venture within five years, it will be paid a minimum 50% of the acquisition price.
DoCoMo, in April 2014, decided to exit the joint venture that struggled to grow subscribers quickly and sought Rs 58 per share or Rs 7,200 crore from the Tatas. But the Indian group offered Rs 23.34 a share in line with RBI guidelines that states that an international firm can only exit its investment at a valuation "not exceeding that arrived at on the basis of return on equity".
The Japanese firm then dragged the Tatas to international arbitration where it won a 1.17 billion dollar award. Tata Sons has said they will resist enforcement of the arbitration award in India as also other jurisdictions as it has been barred by Indian law and public policy.