6 hrs ago
Tata Sons Succession Row Centers on Articles and Chandrasekaran Reappointment
Tata Sons is having a disagreement about whether N Chandrasekaran should serve another term as chairman.
Tata Trusts lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi says the company did not follow its own rules.
He says two directors representing the trusts needed to support the decision.
Noel Tata opposed the reappointment, while Venu Srinivasan supported it.
Singhvi argues that this meant the required support was missing.
He also says a special committee should have helped choose the chairman.
A casting vote, in his view, could not fix the problem.
He says the company’s possible listing should be treated as a separate issue.
Tata Trusts counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenged the process used to reappoint N Chandrasekaran.
Singhvi argues Articles 121 and 115 required support from Tata Trusts nominee directors.
He says Noel Tata’s opposition meant the required majority and board jurisdiction were absent.
Singhvi alleges Articles 104B, 115, 118 and 121 were not followed.
He rejected linking the dispute to Tata Sons’ Reserve Bank of India listing issue.
- Who
- Tata Trusts lead counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenged the process involving Tata Sons, N Chandrasekaran, Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan.
- What
- Singhvi alleged that Tata Sons breached Articles 104B, 115, 118 and 121 during Chandrasekaran’s reappointment process.
- Where
- The matter concerns Tata Sons’ board and Articles of Association; no specific physical location is given.
- When
- The challenged board process took place on September 17; the article does not specify the year.
- Why
- Singhvi says required nominee-director support, board authority and a Trusts-backed selection committee were absent.
Key facts
- Challenged decision
- The reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as Tata Sons chairman
- Key counsel
- Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tata Trusts
- Relevant Articles
- Articles 104B, 115, 118 and 121
- Nominee positions
- Noel Tata opposed the reappointment, while Venu Srinivasan supported it
- Committee issue
- Singhvi says Article 118 required a five-member selection committee with three Trusts representatives
- Casting vote
- Singhvi argues a casting vote could not cure an alleged lack of quorum or jurisdiction
- Listing issue
- Singhvi said Tata Sons’ Reserve Bank of India listing question was unrelated to the appointment dispute
Quotes
Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Lead counsel for Tata Trusts in the Tata Sons succession dispute
“I only know that I'll be the happiest person if things had been settled earlier out of court.”
CNBC TV 18
“The moment one of the two says no, there is no majority as per Article 121.”
CNBC TV 18
Sources
Related news
Tata Trusts Weighs Legal Challenge to Chandrasekaran Reappointment
Tata Trusts Challenge Chandrasekaran Reappointment as Court Battle Looms
Tata Sons Reappointment Vote Triggers Article 121 Legal Dispute
Tata Sons Reappoints Chandrasekaran as Trusts Call Vote Illegal
Tata Trusts Challenge Chandrasekaran Reappointment Over Voting Rules
Tata Sons Board Reappoints Chandrasekaran Amid Trusts Challenge
Tata Stocks Face Governance Risk as Trusts-Sons Dispute Escalates
Abhishek Manu Singhvi: From Tata Defender to Trusts’ Lawyer
