Tata Group’s November test: Chandrasekaran’s reappointment row and Mehli Mistry’s November 5 hearing

The Tata Group is heading into a crucial November as a dispute between Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata and Tata Sons over the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as executive chairman enters a new phase. In a letter dated October 26 addressed to Tata Sons company secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay, Noel Tata described the resolution approving Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as void, reported CNBCTV18. The resolution was passed at a Tata Sons board meeting on September 17 and grants Chandrasekaran another five-year term beginning February 21, 2027.

Noel Tata has argued that the reappointment was not included in the meeting’s agenda, which originally listed only a briefing from the Nomination and Remuneration Committee. He has also contended that no Selection Committee was constituted as required under Article 118 of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association. Further, he has argued that the Articles require nominee directors representing Tata Trusts to vote in favour of such a resolution for it to pass.

Noel Tata voted against Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. In his latest letter, Noel Tata has sought audio and video recordings of the September 17 meeting, its final minutes and details of the voting. He has also requested disclosures concerning dealings between TVS Motor and Hanno One Warehousing, a company whose directors, according to his letter, include Chandrasekaran’s wife and son.

Venu Srinivasan, chairman emeritus of TVS Motor and the second Tata Trusts nominee on the Tata Sons board, voted in favour of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. Noel Tata has sought a response within seven days and clarified that his letter should not be interpreted as acceptance of the resolution’s validity. He had previously written to the company on September 30 and October 8.

Tata Sons maintains reappointment is valid Tata Sons has maintained that Chandrasekaran’s reappointment was validly approved by a majority of the board. In a letter dated September 24, the company informed Noel Tata that the resolution had received majority support. It also argued that the special procedure under the Articles of Association cited by him was not applicable to the reappointment.

To support its position, Tata Sons cited legal opinions from former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and former Supreme Court judge BN Srikrishna. The company has also maintained that relevant disclosures were made to the companies chaired by Chandrasekaran and that the transaction involving TVS Motor did not require disclosure to Tata Sons. The exchange of letters has brought governance procedures, board voting requirements and disclosures involving senior executives into focus as the dispute continues.

Mehli Mistry challenges Tata Trusts’ decisions Separately, the Tata Group is facing a dispute involving Mehli Mistry, a close confidant of the late Ratan Tata and a former trustee of both the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT). Mistry’s term ended on October 28, 2025, after three of the six trustees — Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh — opposed his reappointment, reported CNBCTV18. Following his exit, Mistry approached the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, alleging governance lapses and conflicts of interest at SDTT and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, another Tata trust.

He has also challenged change reports filed by the trusts following his departure. Such reports formally record changes in trustees. Mistry questions Noel Tata’s eligibility as trustee Mistry has separately questioned Noel Tata’s eligibility to serve as a trustee of the Bai Hirabai trust.

He has cited provisions in the trust deed requiring trustees to be practising Zoroastrians belonging to the Parsi community. Mistry has asked the Charity Commissioner to direct Noel Tata to submit an affidavit confirming that he meets these eligibility requirements. The trusts have rejected Mistry’s allegations and challenged his legal standing to raise objections.

They have argued that only a serving trustee or a beneficiary can contest a change report and that Mistry held neither status when he filed his objections. The trusts have also sought a preliminary decision on whether Mistry’s complaints are maintainable before the substantive allegations are examined. Mistry has until November 5 to respond, with the matter scheduled to be heard on the same day.

He has clarified that he does not wish to return as a trustee, indicating that his challenge is focused on the governance issues he has raised rather than reinstatement.