November is shaping up to be a decisive month for the Tata Group. The dispute between Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata and Tata Sons over N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment has moved into a new phase, with several key dates lined up over the next few weeks.
Noel Tata Calls Reappointment Void
In a letter dated October 26 to Tata Sons company secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay, Noel Tata called the resolution reappointing Chandrasekaran void. The resolution, passed at the Tata Sons board meeting on September 17, gives Chandrasekaran another 5-year term as executive chairman from February 21, 2027.
Noel Tata has argued that the reappointment was not on the meeting’s agenda. The original agenda listed only a debriefing from the Nomination and Remuneration Committee. He has also said no Selection Committee was set up under Article 118 of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association. He has further contended that under the Articles, the Trusts’ nominee directors must vote in favour for such a resolution to pass. He voted against it.
The letter seeks the audio and video recordings of the September 17 meeting, the final minutes and the voting details. It also seeks disclosures on dealings between TVS Motor and Hanno One Warehousing, a company whose directors, according to the letter, include Chandrasekaran’s wife and son. Venu Srinivasan, chairman emeritus of TVS Motor, is the second Tata Trusts nominee on the Tata Sons board. He voted in favour of the reappointment.
Noel Tata has asked for a response within 7 days. He has said the letter should not be read as acceptance of the resolution’s validity.
It is not his first such letter. He had written to the company on September 30 and October 8.
Tata Sons Stands By The Resolution
Tata Sons has maintained that the reappointment is valid. In a letter dated September 24, it told Noel Tata that the board approved the reappointment by a majority vote. It said the special procedure under the Articles cited by him does not apply. The company backed its position with legal opinions from former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and former Supreme Court judge BN Srikrishna.
Tata Sons has also said the relevant disclosures were made to the companies Chandrasekaran chairs, and that the TVS Motor transaction did not require disclosure to Tata Sons.
The Mehli Mistry Case
Mehli Mistry, a close confidant of the late Ratan Tata, was a trustee of both the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT). His term ended on October 28, 2025, after 3 of the 6 trustees, Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, opposed his reappointment.
Mistry has since approached the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner. He has alleged governance lapses and conflicts of interest at SDTT and at the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, another Tata trust. He has also objected to change reports filed by the trusts after his exit. These reports record changes in trustees.
Mistry has also questioned Noel Tata’s eligibility to be a trustee of the Bai Hirabai trust. He has cited clauses in its trust deed that require trustees to be practising Zoroastrians from the Parsi community. He has asked the Charity Commissioner to direct Noel Tata to file an affidavit confirming he meets the requirements.
The trusts have rejected his allegations and questioned his locus standi. They argue that only a serving trustee or a beneficiary can object to a change report, and that Mistry was neither when he filed his objections. They have sought a preliminary ruling on maintainability before the merits of his complaints are examined. Mistry has until November 5 to reply, which is also when the matter will next be heard.
Mistry has said he does not wish to return as a trustee.
The Cost Of The Deadlock
As long as the Charity Commissioner’s order keeps SRTT from holding board meetings, SRTT cannot jointly nominate a representative with SDTT. Without that representative, the Tata Sons AGM cannot meet its quorum. So the AGM stays stalled, and with it the approval of Tata Sons’ FY26 accounts and dividend.
The Tata Sons board has recommended a dividend of ₹1,10,717 per share for FY26. That is a total payout of ₹4,478.58 crore, up 70.6% from a year earlier. About ₹2,900 crore of it would go to Tata Trusts.
A complaint filed before the Charity Commissioner estimates that the Trusts are losing about ₹55.6 lakh a day in potential investment returns while the dividend is held up. The estimate assumes a 7% annual return on the ₹2,900 crore.
For context, Tata Trusts disbursed ₹1,556.31 crore in FY26, according to its annual report. The dividend from Tata Sons is the main source of income for that work.
Key Dates to Watch
Early November: Noel Tata’s 7-day deadline for Tata Sons to respond to his October 26 letter.
November 5: The Charity Commissioner hears the Mehli Mistry matter.
November 7: The Tata Steel board meets to approve second-quarter results. The meeting was originally scheduled for October 27. Chandrasekaran is Tata Steel’s chairman and Noel Tata its vice-chairman, so the two are likely to come face to face for the first time since September 17.
November 9: Darius Khambata’s term as an SDTT trustee ends.
November 12: Noel Tata turns 70, the retirement age for non-executive directors in the group. He will step down from the boards of Trent, Titan, Tata Steel, Voltas, Tata Investment Corporation and Tata International. He will continue as a Tata Trusts nominee director on the Tata Sons board.
Second half of November: The next Tata Sons board meeting is expected. A date has not been announced.
December: Venu Srinivasan’s term as an SRTT trustee ends.
December 31: The deadline to hold Tata Sons’ adjourned AGM, after the company secured an extension from the Registrar of Companies.
Whether the AGM can be held, and how shareholders vote on Chandrasekaran’s continuation as a director, could decide the outcome of the dispute. Chandrasekaran must remain a director to continue as chairman.
Also Read: Aeroflex Industries shares jump 18% after company raises FY27 revenue, EBITDA growth targets