Wadia family
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
The Wadia family
From: May 1, 2019: The Times of India
See graphic, ' The Wadia family, 1736-2019 '
Controversies
May 1, 2019: The Times of India
From: May 1, 2019: The Times of India
Business magnate's son Ness Wadia is no stranger to controversy
NEW DELHI: Unlike others in his illustrious family, headlines tend to chase Ness Wadia for the wrong reasons. The elder son of Wadia Group chairman Nusli Wadia, and great-grandson of Pakistan’s founding father Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the 47-year-old had previously courted trouble when his former girlfriend actor Preity Zinta lodged an FIR against him for allegedly abusing and molesting her five years ago.
The incident had occurred at Wankhede Stadium in 2014, during an IPL match. Preity and Ness had broken off their five-year-long relationship a couple of years earlier, but remained business partners as co-owners of Kings XI Punjab IPL team until things went awry. In October, 2018, the Bombay HC quashed the criminal case. Zinta said the dispute between them was “settled” and she wanted to "move on in life". There was further trouble in 2016 when a non-cognisable offence was registered after his driver alleged that the industrialist was forcing him to drive fast and when he did not comply, Ness assaulted and abused him.
The Wadia group — perhaps India’s oldest conglomerate, with interests in plantations, foods, textiles, chemicals, electronics, health care and real estate with Bombay Burmah, Bombay Dyeing, Britannia and GoAir being their flagship companies — steered clear of these controversies all along.
The group traces its roots back to 1736 when Lovji Nusserwanji Wadia, founder of the shipping industry in Mumbai, set up a marine company and went on to build the first ships constructed for the British Navy outside England. He also constructed the Bombay dry-dock, the first dry-dock in Asia. Some of the Parsi residential baugs were built by Bai Jerbai Wadia, the great-great-grandmother of Ness Wadia. She conceived plans to build low-cost housing colonies for Parsi families migrating from villages in Gujarat to Mumbai.
Ness’s grandfather, Neville, served as chairman of the Bombay Dyeing textile company until 1977, after which Nusli Wadia assumed the position. His mother, Maureen Wadia was a flight attendant before she started a fashion magazine and is president of a beauty pageant. His brother, Jehangir, is the head of the GoAir airline. Ness who was born in Liverpool studied at The Cathedral & John Connon School and Lawrence School in Himachal Pradesh, and then at Millfield School in the UK. With degrees in international relations from Tufts University in the US and engineering management from the University of Warwick in England he became joint managing director of Bombay Dyeing until 2011 when he resigned. After stepping down, he has been managing director of their Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation and on the board of directors of several family-owned companies.
The two-year suspended sentence for possession of drugs in Japan “will not impact Ness Wadia,” said a statement issued by the group but the public nature of Ness’s mess is likely to stay in focus.
A patch up/ 2020
Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 14, 2020: The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Tata Sons chairman emeritus Ratan Tata’s conciliatory statement that he had “no intention to defame” industrialist Nusli Wadia saw the latter agree before the Supreme Court to drop civil and criminal defamation cases he had filed against Tata three years ago.
The court said in its order, “Although Wadia was aggrieved by the statement of Tata, in view of the statement made by Tata that there is no intention to defame Wadia, which is in accordance with the (Bombay) high court’s observations, the petitioner (Wadia) states that he withdraws this petition as well as the civil defamation suit against Tata.”
Wadia had initiated criminal defamation proceedings against Tata and other directors of Tata Group companies after he was ousted as director from Tata Steel, Tata Chemicals and Tata Motors for his support to Cyrus Mistry, who was voted out as executive chairman of Tata Sons in 2016.
Wadia had termed the resolution — purportedly drafted by Tata and others and circulated in the boards of these companies — defamatory as it questioned his bona fide and independence. He had also filed a Rs 3,000-crore civil defamation suit against Tata and others.
On Tata’s plea, the Bombay high court had quashed the criminal defamation proceedings, while recording that there was no intention on Tata’s part to defame Wadia through the contents of the resolutions circulated among the board of directors for his removal.
On January 6, a bench of CJI S A Bobde and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant had urged the two top industrialists not to waste time litigating against each other and bury the hatchet. Tata’s counsel A M Singhvi had expressed willingness to make a statement that there was no intention to defame Wadia, as found by Bombay HC, while quashing the criminal defamation case against Tata.
The court had suggested reconciliation between Tata and Wadia while hearing the latter’s appeal against the Bombay HC order. But a counsel’s statement that Wadia would pursue civil defamation case even though he was agreeable to drop the criminal defamation proceedings made the bench adjourn the hearing and ask Wadia’s counsel C A Sundaram to take instructions from his client about withdrawing all defamation cases against Tata.
Wadia’s counsel C A Sundaram read out a one-paragraph statement which conveyed that Wadia would drop both criminal and civil defamation proceedings if Tata made a statement that there was no intention to defame him in the 2016 resolutions.
As and when such a statement was made by Tata, Wadia was ready for an amicable settlement of the issue and “shall withdraw the present petition and the civil suit for damages”, Sundaram said. Singhvi said since the HC had already given a finding that there was no intention to defame Wadia, Tata had no reservation to record a statement to that effect before the SC.
