The dispute over the leadership of Tata Sons has intensified after Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata challenged the validity of N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as executive chairman and raised questions about reported commercial dealings between TVS Motor and a company linked to Chandrasekaran’s family.

In a letter dated October 26 to Tata Sons company secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay and the board, Noel sought records and disclosures relating to the September 17 board meeting at which Chandrasekaran’s reappointment for another five-year term was approved.

Noel has argued that the resolution was not properly included in the meeting agenda, that the prescribed selection procedure was not followed and that the required voting conditions were not met. He has maintained that the resolution is void and sought extensive documentation to support a review of the decision.

Why Noel Tata has challenged Chandrasekaran’s reappointment

One of Noel’s principal objections concerns the agenda and procedure followed at the September 17 board meeting.

According to his letter, neither the original nor the revised agenda specifically listed a resolution on Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. The relevant agenda item was described as a debriefing from the nomination and remuneration committee (NRC), but the reappointment resolution was subsequently moved under that item.

Noel has also questioned why a selection committee was not constituted under Article 118 of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association, despite a request for its formation dating back to August 13.

He has further argued that the affirmative vote required from directors appointed under Article 104B, read alongside Article 121, was not obtained and that conditions attached to the resolution remain unfulfilled.

Another objection relates to the certification and filing of the resolution before the board minutes had been finalised. Noel has sought the final signed minutes, voting records, different versions of the meeting agenda and the original audio-video recording and transcript.

He has also asked the company to inform the Registrar of Companies that the resolution’s validity is disputed.

Noel Tata raises questions over TVS Motor dealings

The second major issue concerns reported commercial arrangements between TVS Motor and Hanno One Warehousing, a company whose directors include Chandrasekaran’s wife, Lalitha, and son, Pranav.

Noel’s letter refers to reported dealings involving the two companies and questions whether these relationships were disclosed to Tata Sons before Chandrasekaran’s reappointment was considered.

According to the reports cited in the letter, TVS Motor leased approximately 17.41 acres of land near its Hosur plant to Hanno One in June 2025 for 29 years, with a renewal option available to Hanno One.

Hanno One is reportedly constructing a facility of approximately 3.3 lakh square feet for TVS Motor. The reported project cost is around Rs 106 crore, with a deposit of Rs 27 crore. A construction loan of approximately Rs 60 crore from HDFC Bank was also reported.

A separate arrangement involves land near TVS Motor’s Mysuru factory for an industrial park estimated to cost Rs 330 crore, intended to serve TVS Motor and its suppliers.

Noel has questioned whether these commercial relationships were disclosed to the Tata Sons board and the Tata Trusts before the reappointment decision.

He has stated that he does not recall the relevant disclosures being presented to the board. His letter also points out that the interest disclosure recorded from Venu Srinivasan at the September 17 meeting concerned his having ceased to be a director of TVS Group companies on June 10, 2026.

Why Venu Srinivasan’s role is under scrutiny

Noel has also questioned the participation of Venu Srinivasan, chairman emeritus of TVS Motor and a member of Tata Sons’ nomination and remuneration committee.

Srinivasan participated in the committee’s deliberations on September 3 and cast the vote associated with the Article 104B director requirement during the September 17 board process.

Noel has argued that Srinivasan should have disclosed the reported commercial relationship between TVS Motor and Chandrasekaran’s family before participating in the assessment and voting process.

In his letter, Noel contends that Srinivasan should have declared the dealings and recused himself from both the NRC deliberations and the subsequent board meeting.

He has questioned whether Srinivasan’s participation affects the validity of the committee’s recommendation and the board resolution.

These are objections raised by Noel and do not, by themselves, establish that a conflict of interest occurred or that the resolution is legally invalid.

Tata Code of Conduct and disclosures sought

Noel’s letter also refers to the Tata Code of Conduct, which sets out expectations regarding actual or potential conflicts of interest and the disclosure of relevant interests held by immediate family members.

He has sought declarations of interest from Chandrasekaran and Srinivasan, relevant Form MBP-1 filings, annual compliance affirmations and communications concerning Hanno One and TVS Motor.

The letter also requests records of any disclosure made in April 2025 concerning Hanno One’s incorporation, along with evidence of whether the board or any committee considered that disclosure.

Noel has questioned whether the reported commercial arrangements were brought to the attention of the legal advisers whose opinions were obtained in support of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment.

He has sought the instructions and documents provided to those advisers, the authority under which the opinions were commissioned and clarification on whether the Hanno One dealings were disclosed to them.

Additionally, he has requested the agenda, papers, minutes, attendance records and recordings of the September 3 NRC meeting.

Noel has asked Tata Sons to provide the requested records and disclosures within seven days and to preserve relevant documents, recordings and communications without alteration or destruction.

What Tata Sons has said

Tata Sons has maintained that the reported TVS Motor transaction did not require disclosure to the company. A spokesperson’s statement cited in Noel’s letter said Hanno One’s incorporation had been disclosed in April 2025 to companies chaired by Chandrasekaran.

The company has also previously defended the validity of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, relying on legal opinions supporting the board’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of its Articles of Association.

The disagreement centres on whether the board followed the correct procedure, whether the necessary voting requirements were satisfied and whether relevant interests were adequately disclosed.

Noel’s latest letter seeks further records and clarification on these issues, keeping the dispute over Chandrasekaran’s reappointment and Tata Sons’ corporate governance in focus.

Tamil Nadu’s ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) has targeted Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president MK Stalin following the arrest of former state Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in an alleged corruption case involving private schools.

In a series of social media posts, the TVK IT wing accused Stalin of hypocrisy over corruption allegations against DMK leaders. One post used the phrase “Bengal monitor lizard” while questioning the DMK chief’s response to the case.

The political exchange followed Mahesh’s arrest by the Chennai Police’s Central Crime Branch on Monday, October 26, after the Madras High Court rejected his anticipatory bail petition.

TVK invokes Bengal monitor lizard remark

The TVK IT wing directly questioned Stalin over the corruption allegations involving members of his party.

“Stalin sir, who can’t be caught… Were you sleeping while in power? When your ministers have racked up so many corruption cases, why, sir, are you just flapping your mouth like a Bengal monitor lizard?” one of the posts said.

The party also published a longer message accusing the DMK of corruption across government departments and criticising its political messaging.

The posts were attacks by the ruling party’s IT wing, rather than judicial findings about the allegations against the DMK.

TVK recalls Anbil Mahesh’s remarks after Karur stampede

In its social media campaign, the TVK IT wing also referred to remarks made by Anbil Mahesh after the Karur stampede in 2025, in which 41 people were killed during a rally addressed by actor-turned-politician Vijay, the TVK chief.

At the time, Mahesh was Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister. A video showing him breaking down while speaking about repeated appeals for people to follow safety conditions at the gathering had circulated widely.

The TVK IT wing referenced those remarks in a post carrying the phrase “Conditions are followed”, accompanied by a winking emoji.

The post used the earlier remarks to criticise the DMK leadership in the aftermath of Mahesh’s arrest.

Why Anbil Mahesh was arrested

Mahesh was arrested in connection with an alleged Rs 100 crore corruption case involving money purportedly collected from private educational institutions in exchange for permanent recognition, licences and other government approvals.

The investigation followed allegations that representatives of a private schools’ association collected money while promising to facilitate official clearances for educational institutions.

According to the report, investigators identified 177 schools believed to have been affected by the alleged scheme.

Mahesh has denied the allegations and challenged the case against him. The allegations remain subject to legal proceedings.

The arrest came after the Madras High Court rejected his anticipatory bail petition on Monday. Mahesh has also approached the court seeking to quash the First Information Report registered against him.

MK Stalin calls arrest politically motivated

Reacting to Mahesh’s arrest, Stalin accused the TVK government of targeting a political opponent and attempting to divert public attention from the state’s governance issues.

He said the former minister had cooperated with the investigation and would face the allegations through legal channels.

The DMK has maintained that the action against Mahesh is politically motivated, while the case against the former minister concerns allegations of corruption and breach of trust.

The developments have led to a fresh exchange between the ruling TVK and the opposition DMK, with both sides making allegations against the other.

Several people were injured after five vehicles in Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s convoy collided with an ambulance on the Purvanchal Expressway in Uttar Pradesh on Monday, October 26.

The accident occurred near Haliyapur, around 100 km from Lucknow, according to police cited in the report. The five vehicles involved were travelling at the rear of the convoy. Rahul Gandhi was safe following the incident.

Party workers and security personnel accompanying the convoy were among those injured, according to the report.

Where the accident happened

The collision took place on the Purvanchal Expressway while Rahul Gandhi was travelling from Lucknow towards Sultanpur.

The Congress MP had arrived at Lucknow airport earlier in the day before beginning the journey to Sultanpur, where he was scheduled to appear before a special MP-MLA court.

The court was due to pronounce its verdict in a defamation case related to alleged remarks about Amit Shah, who was the BJP president at the time of the alleged comments.

Details of the defamation case

The case dates back to 2018, when Vijay Mishra, a BJP leader and former chairman of the Sultanpur District Cooperative Bank, filed a complaint against Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks about Amit Shah.

The remarks were reportedly made during a campaign rally in Bengaluru ahead of the 2018 Karnataka Assembly elections.

Rahul Gandhi was travelling to Sultanpur for the court proceedings when the accident involving vehicles at the rear of his convoy occurred.