Tata Trusts Brings In Top Lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi As Tata Sons Dispute Deepens

Tata Trusts has appointed senior Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to represent it in its escalating dispute with Tata Sons, days after the holding company’s board reappointed N Chandrasekaran as chairman for another five years.

Singhvi, who has previously worked with late Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata, said he regretted that the differences between the two sides could not be resolved amicably.

“Having worked closely with Ratan Tata earlier, being aware of his legacy and not only knowing personally all the principal actors on both sides in the current so called Tata dispute but also having deep, genuine and abiding respect for and excellent equations with all of them, my first reaction, as I enter the fray as the lead lawyer for one side, is one of sadness and regret that these issues could not be solved amicably,” he said in a post on X.

The dispute centres on Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, Tata Sons’ proposed listing and the rights of Tata Trusts, which owns about 66% of the holding company.

Singhvi Flags Shareholder Rights

Singhvi said the dispute would ultimately have to be viewed through the rights of shareholders. “Fundamental rights of shareholder-owners cannot be nullified in the manner in which they have been,” he said, adding that doing so would have wider implications for corporate governance.

He also questioned restrictions on Tata Trusts’ ability to convene trustee meetings. “To stymie democratic intra-Trust decision-making by Tata Trusts by putting a sudden and completely unwarranted fetter on even their convening for a meeting is another matter of patent legality,” Singhvi said.

The issue is significant because restrictions involving the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) have affected the Trusts’ ability to take certain decisions and have also contributed to uncertainty around Tata Sons’ annual general meeting (AGM).

Tata Trusts-Tata Sons Dispute

Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata opposed Chandrasekaran’s reappointment at the September 17 board meeting. The board nevertheless approved another five-year term, with the reported vote ending 4-1 after independent director Harish Manwani used a casting vote in favour of Chandrasekaran. Tata Trusts has called the resolution “illegal” and a “legal nullity”.

Singhvi also defended the importance of unanimity within the Tata Trusts and their veto rights, saying these principles had been followed for decades. He further referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tata-Mistry case, saying the ruling recognised Tata Trusts’ position and upheld special provisions in Tata Sons’ Articles. These are Singhvi’s interpretations of the judgment and the applicable governance framework.

The two sides are also divided over the future of Tata Sons. The company has begun steps towards a potential listing following the Reserve Bank of India’s latest position on its Core Investment Company registration, while Tata Trusts has said it has not agreed to a listing and wants alternatives to be examined.

Singhvi said the widening differences could now require legal resolution. “Unfortunately, in the absence of collegiality and conviviality, these and many other related issues can only have legal solutions,” he said.