Noel Tata counters process to rename Chandra, seeks board meeting records

In a direct challenge to the process through which N Chandrasekaran was reappointed as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons for another five years, Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata has demanded audio and video recordings of a crucial board meeting, questioned the filing of the reappointment resolution with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the role of Director Venu Srinivasan, and sought disclosures about reported commercial dealings between TVS Motor Company and a company associated with Chandrasekaran’s immediate family.

In a letter dated October 26 to Suprakash Mukhopadhyay, Company Secretary of Tata Sons, and copied to all directors, Noel Tata alleged that a contested resolution had been treated as a concluded decision even as the minutes remained unsettled, his objections unresolved, and the company had failed to provide recordings of the September 17 board meeting. The board approved a five-year extension for Chandrasekaran and decided to pursue the company’s listing.

The letter sets a seven-day deadline for the company to furnish records and disclosures, warning that failure to do so would invite adverse inferences.

“The recording is the only neutral record of what transpired,” Noel Tata wrote, arguing that there could be “no legitimate reason to withhold it from a director who was present at the meeting and who has placed his objections on record.”

Noel Tata said neither the original nor the revised agenda circulated for the September 17 meeting identified Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as a proposed resolution. Agenda item 7 was described as a “Debriefing from Nomination and Remuneration Committee”. Although the revised agenda added discussion of a September 11 letter from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and related caveat applications, it still did not mention the reappointment. Nevertheless, the resolution was moved under that item, he wrote.

He also questioned the reported filing of the resolution with the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, before the minutes had been finalised and while his objections remained unresolved. “It is unacceptable that, despite being a Director of the Company, I have not been furnished with a certified true copy of the resolution and have instead been constrained to rely on a version circulating in the public domain,” he wrote.

The letter asserts that no Selection Committee was constituted under Article 118, despite a request dating to August 13, and that the affirmative vote required from directors appointed under Article 104B was not obtained.

Story continues below this ad

He warned that filing it with the Registrar of Companies presented a disputed decision as a completed act of the board, conveying “a false impression to the public, to the company’s stakeholders and to its regulators”.

Seven days to produce recordings and filing records

Noel Tata has sought the complete, unedited audio and video recordings of the September 17 meeting, any transcript and confirmation that the original recordings and their metadata have been preserved. He has also demanded the final signed minutes or, if unsigned, the revised draft, showing which of his proposed corrections were accepted and recording his dissent where they were not.

The demands include the formal meeting notice, successive versions of the agenda, circulation dates and times, details of who instructed changes, and the audit trail of documents uploaded to the board’s web application.

He has sought the voting outcome on each part of agenda item 6, including individual directors’ votes wherever a resolution was proposed, and confirmation of whether the required affirmative votes were obtained. The company has also been asked to disclose when the certified resolution was issued, who authorised it, whether it preceded the signing of the minutes, and all documents filed with the Corporate Affairs Ministry.

Story continues below this ad

Noel Tata has further requested confirmation that Tata Sons will inform the Registrar of Companies, in writing, that the resolution’s validity is disputed by him and that no further steps will be taken until the record of the meeting is settled.

TVS Motor dealings

The second major strand of the letter concerns Hanno One Warehousing Pvt Ltd, whose directors include Lalitha Chandrasekaran and Pranav Chandrasekaran, and its reported commercial relationship with TVS Motor.

Citing media reports, Noel Tata outlined transactions involving land, construction and proposed industrial infrastructure. According to the letter, TVS Motor leased approximately 17.41 acres near its Hosur plant to Hanno One in June 2025 for 29 years, renewable at Hanno One’s option. Hanno One is reportedly constructing a facility of approximately 3.30 lakh square feet for TVS Motor, with rental payments expected to begin in November 2026.

It also refers to land allotted to Hanno One near TVS Motor’s Mysuru factory for an industrial park estimated to cost Rs 330 crore and intended to serve TVS Motor and its suppliers. Noel Tata cites a report referring to Karnataka Land Audit Committee minutes dated November 6, 2025, in which a Hanno One representative reportedly said the company had “entered into agreement with TVS Motor company”.

Story continues below this ad

The central question raised in the letter by Tata is whether the board received sufficient information about a commercial relationship involving the Executive Chairman’s immediate family while considering his reappointment.

Srinivasan’s role questioned

Noel Tata has specifically questioned the participation of Venu Srinivasan, Chairman emeritus of TVS Motor, in the Nomination and Remuneration Committee meeting on September 3 and the Tata Sons board meeting on September 17. Srinivasan is a member of the committee that reviews the Executive Chairman’s performance and remuneration.

According to Noel Tata, he participated in the committee’s deliberations and cast the Article 104B-nominated director’s vote on which the company relies in treating the reappointment resolution as passed.

Noel Tata argued that the reported dealings between TVS Motor and Hanno One placed Srinivasan in a position of conflict when evaluating Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. “As a director nominated by a charitable trust, he owes a fiduciary duty not only to the trust but to the nameless, faceless beneficiaries of those trusts,” Noel Tata wrote, adding that the required standard was “pure, unadulterated public interest”.

Story continues below this ad

Noel Tata said he did not recall any disclosure of the reported dealings being placed before the Tata Sons board. The disclosures recorded under Section 184 of the Companies Act at the September 17 meeting referred to Srinivasan having ceased to be a director of TVS group companies on June 10, 2026, rather than to the Hanno One relationship, he wrote.

According to his letter, Tata Sons’ spokesperson had stated that Hanno One’s incorporation was disclosed in April 2025 to companies chaired by Chandrasekaran and that the TVS Motor transaction did not require disclosure to Tata Sons.

Noel Tata has demanded the original April 2025 disclosure, relevant declarations of interest, Chandrasekaran’s annual affirmations under the Tata Code of Conduct, records of any conflict-of-interest review and the basis for the company’s position that the transaction did not require disclosure.

Legal opinions by Tata Sons

The letter also challenged the circumstances in which legal opinions were obtained on the reappointment. Noel Tata said the opinions of retired judges Uday U. Lalit and B. N. Srikrishna was sought after the resolution’s result had been publicly declared.

Story continues below this ad

He points out that Srinivasan was among those who sought Justice Lalit’s opinion, raising questions about advice on the validity of a vote in which Srinivasan himself participated. Noel Tata has sought the instructions and documents supplied to the lawyers, details of who authorised the opinions and confirmation of whether the reported TVS Motor dealings were disclosed to them.

Invoking Article 121B, he has asked the board to consider the alleged nondisclosures, Srinivasan’s participation, the constitution of a Selection Committee under Article 118, and the RBI’s September 11 letter concerning Tata Sons’ status and proposed reorganisation.

The letter concluded with instructions to preserve relevant records, including board papers, agenda audit trails, internal communications, disclosures, and communications with the press concerning Hanno One.