Archive · 17 Sep 2026
Tata Trust Bars Venu Srinivasan From Vote; He Objects
A trust decided that Venu Srinivasan could not vote in an upcoming Tata Sons decision.
Srinivasan disagreed with that decision.
He wrote to the Trustees on September 16.
He said the decision was illegal and had no proper authority.
He also said the Trustees made it without discussing the matter.
Srinivasan said he was not given a chance to explain himself.
He believes this was unfair to him.
The articles do not state the trust’s reasons for barring his vote.
A trust barred Venu Srinivasan from voting ahead of a Tata Sons vote.
Srinivasan rejected the circular resolution in a September 16 letter to the Trustees.
He called the resolution illegal, unauthorized, and without force or effect.
He said the decision was made without deliberation or giving him a chance to respond.
Srinivasan argued that the action violated fairness and natural justice within the public charitable trust.
- Who
- The trust and Venu Srinivasan are involved; the Trustees received Srinivasan’s letter.
- What
- The trust barred Srinivasan from voting ahead of a Tata Sons vote, while he rejected the action.
- When
- Srinivasan sent his letter on September 16; the vote was described as taking place the following night.
- Where
- The location was not specified.
- Why
- The trust’s specific reason was not provided; Srinivasan said the action was procedurally unfair and unauthorized.
Trust’s Action
Srinivasan’s Objection
Voting eligibility
Trust’s Action
The trust barred Venu Srinivasan from voting ahead of the Tata Sons vote.
Srinivasan’s Objection
Srinivasan rejected the attempt to remove his voting rights.
Validity of the resolution
Trust’s Action
The trust proceeded with a circular resolution concerning Srinivasan’s voting status.
Srinivasan’s Objection
Srinivasan called the resolution illegal, without authority, and of no force or effect.
Decision-making process
Trust’s Action
The trust’s decision was made through a circular resolution, according to the article.
Srinivasan’s Objection
Srinivasan said it was passed without deliberation, notice, or an opportunity for him to explain his position.
- Person affected
- Venu Srinivasan
- Matter
- Voting in an upcoming Tata Sons decision
- Decision mechanism
- Circular resolution
- Letter date
- September 16
- Srinivasan’s position
- He called the resolution illegal, unauthorized, and ineffective.
- Process criticism
- He said there was no deliberation, notice, or opportunity to be heard.
- Trust description
- The article describes SDTT as a public charitable trust.