Tata Sons rejects Noel Tata's request for board meeting recording
text_fields
Tata Sons has rejected Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata's request for the audio-video recording of its September 17 board meeting, while defending its handling of disclosures involving TVS Motor Company and Hanno One Warehousing, a company linked to the family of Executive Chairman N Chandrasekaran.
In a letter dated November 9, the company's secretary said Tata Sons had no practice of sharing recordings of in-person board meetings with directors. It added that recordings were required only when directors attended meetings virtually.
Noel had sought the recording in an October 26 letter questioning the validity of Chandrasekaran's reappointment for a third five-year term.
The dispute also involves commercial arrangements between TVS Motor and Hanno One. Tata Sons said disclosures about Hanno One were made to all companies where Chandrasekaran serves as chairman on April 10, 2025. It also said the contract awarded by TVS Motor to Hanno One did not conflict with Tata Sons' business.
However, Noel had questioned whether the board was informed about the arrangements before Chandrasekaran's reappointment. These reportedly include a 29-year land lease near TVS Motor's Hosur plant and the development of an industrial facility, as well as a proposed industrial park near its Mysuru factory.
Noel also raised questions about TVS Motor Chairman Emeritus Venu Srinivasan's participation in the September 3 nomination and remuneration committee meeting and his vote in favour of Chandrasekaran's reappointment.
Tata Sons said the September 17 meeting's draft minutes were uploaded on its board application on October 1. It added that the reappointment resolution was passed by a majority after all directors participated in the discussion.
The company also shared the minutes of the September 3 committee meeting and said legal opinions had been obtained before the board meeting. Additional opinions secured later had confirmed the earlier advice.
The dispute centres on the interpretation of Tata Sons' Articles of Association. Noel argues that the required affirmative support from the Trusts' nominee directors was absent. Tata Sons has defended the use of the presiding chairman's casting vote, citing legal opinions from former Chief Justice U U Lalit and former Supreme Court judge B N Srikrishna.