MUMBAI: A Mumbai court on Tuesday admitted a criminal defamation complaint filed by Ramachandran Venkataramanan, the managing trustee of Tata Trusts, against former Tata Group chairman Cyrus Mistry , his brother Shapoor Mistry and their firms, seeking Rs 500 crore in damages and an unconditional apology.Venkataramanan, also known as Venkat, has accused the ousted Tata Sons chairman and others of making false statements against him, damaging his reputation.This is the first salvo fired from the Tata camp, which so far has been defending itself against charges made by Mistry. Other people who have been accused of wrongdoings by Mistry are also likely to take similar steps, sources in the know of the matter said. Mistry’s office called filing of the petition an “ill-advised and immature proxy battle” by the Tata camp through Venkat to “muzzle and interfere with legal proceedings” he has initiated against it, and said the former chairman will “continue to do the right thing” to protect the Tata Group from “oppressive conduct and mismanagement”.On Tuesday, additional chief metropolitan magistrate Krishna Paldewar ordered issue of notices to the accused — the Mistry brothers and directors of their companies, Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Pvt Ltd — directing them to appear before the court and execute bail bonds. The next hearing is scheduled for August 24.The brothers, through their investment firms, own about 18.4% of Tata Sons, the holding firm of the $100-billion-plus Tata Group. They can move the high court seeking quashing of the complaint.Venkat claimed that an email that Mistry sent to Tata Sons directors and Tata Trusts trustees on October 25, 2016 contained "defamatory statements" about him. In the email, written a day after the Tata Sons board voted him out as chairman, Mistry had alleged about "certain fraudulent transactions of Rs 22 crore" involving non-existent parties in India and Singapore at AirAsia India, which is partly owned by Tata Sons, and stated that Venkat considered as "non-material" and "didn't encourage any further study" of it. Mistry had also alluded to some foreign bank accounts in some of his statements.According to Venkat’s complaint, the email, which found its way to the media, caused "irreparable" damages to his reputation among his colleagues, family, friends and society.It also accused Mistry of making "false, malicious and derogatory" allegations against Venkat in filings with the National Company Law Tribunal in Mumbai. In his filings, Mistry stated that Venkat had asked Tata Capital to offer loans to C Sivasankaran (a close friend Ratan Tata), which had turned bad.“I’ve been defamed in the eyes of the public at large,” Venkat said in his complaint.Venkat’s complaint came even as the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is hearing an appeal between Mistry and Tata Sons."Cyrus in his desperation and under bad advice, levelled baseless allegations against Venkat and others. Venkat had to respond to this and hence this complaint. This in an attempt to expose the truth, within the boundaries of law," said Zulfiquar Memon of MzM Legal, the law firm representing Venkat and Tata Trusts.Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investment had moved the Mumbai tribunal against what they termed the oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement at Tata companies. The tribunal dismissed the petition saying the investment firms have insufficient shareholding to seek a legal recourse. It also declined to grant a waiver on the maintainability of the petition. The companies then appealed the tribunal's order at NCLAT, New Delhi, which is being heard now.Mistry’s office in an email added: “The move by the Tata trustees to attempt to muzzle and interfere with legal proceedings faced by them, now before the NCLAT, will be effectively and appropriately dealt with. We believe in the nation's legal system and know such subversion of justice systems will meet its fate. The petitioners in the NCLAT proceedings and Mr Mistry will continue to do the right thing … and protect it (Tata Group) from oppressive conduct and mismanagement."The magistrate’s court upheld arguments of Venkat's counsel from MZM Legal that Article 21 of the Constitution on right to life is inclusive of the right to live with dignity and that a millionaire and Mason are equal in the eyes of law under Article 14 — which provides for equality before the law and equal protection.“All such allegations were hurled irresponsibly against Venkat, Ratan Tata, Tata Sons and others only after his (Mistry’s) unceremonious ouster from Tata Sons. Why was he otherwise silent for his entire tenure, not to speak about several of his wrongdoings against which Tata Sons may have its own cause of action,” Venkat’s counsel argued.