The Tata Education & Development Trust would not bear any legal expenses arising from the dispute and asked for the communication to be formally recorded at the Trust’s next board meeting
The escalating dispute between Tata Sons and Tata Trusts over the reappointment of chairman N Chandrasekaran increasingly appears headed for a legal showdown, with two of the country’s most prominent legal minds now associated with opposing sides.
Senior advocate Harish Salve is understood to be advising the Chandrasekaran-led Tata Sons, while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi has entered the fray on behalf of Tata Trusts. The disagreement stems from Tata Trusts’ challenge to the validity of the September 17 board resolution that approved Chandrasekaran’s reappointment for a further five-year term.
Cyrus Mistry Ruling
Singhvi on Sunday publicly backed the Trusts’ position, invoking the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Tata Sons-Cyrus Mistry case, where the court upheld the special rights granted to Tata Trusts under the company’s Articles of Association (AoA). In a post on X, Singhvi said the judgment had clearly recognised the primacy of Tata Trusts in their relationship with Tata Sons and upheld the special Articles designed to protect that position.
“Unfortunately, in the absence of collegiality and conviviality, these and many other related issues can only have legal solutions,” Singhvi wrote, adding that the Supreme Court judgment and the fiduciary obligations owed to millions of Indians appeared to have been “selectively forgotten”.
In a separate statement, Singhvi said he was entering the dispute with “sadness and regret”, noting his association with the late Ratan Tata and his longstanding relationship with key individuals on both sides. He argued that the fundamental rights of shareholder-owners could not be nullified in the manner alleged by the Trusts.
Trusts Reject Remedy
The sharp exchange follows Tata Trusts’ assertion that the board resolution failed to secure the affirmative support of a majority of Trust-nominated directors as required under the AoA, and therefore could not be validated through a casting vote. The Trusts have also argued that listing Tata Sons should not be viewed as a governance solution, noting that the company already follows several governance practices associated with listed entities.
Mehli Mistry
The dispute has also drawn in members of the wider Tata family. In an email dated September 17, Mehli Mistry told Tata Trusts officials that he was “saddened” by the litigation involving Tata Trusts and Tata Sons, describing it as unprecedented in over 150 years. He also stated that the Tata Education & Development Trust (TEDT) would not bear any legal expenses arising from the dispute and asked for his communication to be formally recorded at the Trust’s next board meeting on November 20, 2026.
With both sides now firmly entrenched and legal interpretations of the AoA at the centre of the conflict, the battle over Chandrasekaran’s reappointment increasingly appears destined to move from the boardroom to the courtroom.
Published on September 20, 2026
