By all measures, the ongoing tussle at Tata Sons over who should be the next chairman of the vast and sprawling Tata empire is not a pretty sight. Recently, the six Tata Trusts, which together own 66 per cent of Tata Sons, have filed caveats with the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, requesting that their side be heard before the Charity Commissioner passes any adverse orders. The caveats were themselves the result of Tata Sons deciding to vote on 17 September whether N Chandrasekaran should be given a third term as chairman of the Tata conglomerate. The vote was carried with one dissent.
It boggles the mind that even when the trusts that own nearly two-thirds of the holding firm are against, the reappointment was able to go through all because the Tata Trusts vote was split between the two nominees on the board: Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan. Here lies another conundrum: Tata Trusts is supposed to have three nominees on the board of Tata Sons; the third was a former bureaucrat Vijay Singh who served out his term till September last year. His replacement is yet to be appointed.
In May, Noel Tata, as chairman of Tata Trusts, sought to have Venu Srinivasan removed. The Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) meeting that was called to remove Srinivasan was blocked by the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, following a complaint filed by Srinivasan himself, to probe the matter of lifetime trustees being over the 25 per cent quota.
All these disputes make for arcane legal issues and there is no doubt the many lawyers working on both sides will be busy over the next few weeks as this battle plays out. The far bigger concern is the message that goes out to businessmen and investors, not just in India, but across the world.