What are the two sides arguing?
Both Tata Trusts and Tata Sons have appointed prominent lawyers to represent their positions.
Tata Trusts, led by Noel Tata, is represented by senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi. His position is that the dispute is fundamentally about shareholder supremacy and that Tata Sons’ board cannot operate independently of its controlling shareholder.
Tata Sons chairman Chandrasekaran has engaged senior lawyer Harish Salve. Salve has argued that the board acted in accordance with the company’s internal governance rules and that the Trusts cannot assume that their ownership stake automatically gives them control over every board decision.
Why can’t Tata Trusts simply remove the chairman?
The Trusts’ ability to call a shareholders’ meeting is currently constrained by a regulatory dispute involving one of the principal charities, Sir Ratan Tata Trust.
The Tata Trusts comprise several affiliated charitable entities. While their combined voting rights could potentially be used to requisition a shareholders’ meeting, Sir Ratan Tata Trust has been barred by a regulator from convening its own meetings because of a dispute involving internal appointments.
As a result, the charities currently lack the ability, under their internal arrangements, to call a Tata Sons shareholders’ meeting. The Trusts can either wait for the regulatory restrictions to be resolved or consider approaching a court to seek relief, according to people familiar with the matter.
What is the dispute over Tata Sons’ Articles of Association?
At the centre of the disagreement are Tata Sons’ Articles of Association, which set out the company’s governance rules and are not publicly available.
Tata Trusts’ position is that if Noel Tata opposed Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, the appointment should not have proceeded without support from both of the Trusts’ nominees on the board.
Tata Sons disputes this interpretation. Salve’s position is that the two Trust nominees voted differently, triggering a casting vote under the applicable governance provisions and allowing Chandrasekaran’s reappointment to proceed.
Could the dispute move to court?
Tata Trusts is considering legal options, including approaching the Mumbai-based company tribunal to challenge the board’s decision on Chandrasekaran’s reappointment.
The disagreement also extends to the proposed listing of Tata Sons. While the board supports moving ahead with the listing, Tata Trusts opposes it and could potentially approach the Mumbai High Court over regulatory requirements governing the proposed listing.
(With Reuters inputs)
