NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: Tata Trusts on Sunday fired a fresh salvo in the ongoing rift with Tata Sons over the issue of the re-appointment of N Chandrasekaran as the chairman of the company, saying there was no deadlock at the board meeting on September 17 and a casting vote cannot revive a stillborn resolution.

“The resolution to reappoint N Chandrasekaran as the chairman of Tata Sons, considered at the board meeting on September 17, 2026, was not validly passed and has no legal effect. In the eyes of the law, it is void ab initio,” the statement said.

The statement highlights that the Supreme Court judgment in the Tata-Mistry case has upheld the protective right of Tata Trusts as the majority shareholder.

The boardroom battle at India’s largest conglomerate escalated last week after Tata Sons’ directors approved a fresh term for executive chairman Chandrasekaran in a vote that the group’s biggest shareholder called illegal.

Noel Tata, who chairs the network of charitable trusts holding roughly two-thirds of Tata Sons’ shares, cast the sole vote against extending Chandrasekaran’s tenure by five years. Venu Srinivasan, the other Tata Trusts nominee on the Tata Sons board, supported the extension.

According to the statement, the Articles of Association (AoA) of Tata Sons do not leave any decision of the board to a mere head count of directors. They provide that no decision can be made unless it has the affirmative support of at least a majority of the directors nominated by the Tata Trusts, who hold approximately 66% of the company. This is a separate condition under the AoA.

There are two Tata Trusts nominees on the Board of Tata Sons. The majority amongst the two is two, not one. On September 17, one such director voted against the resolution. Thus, the affirmative support of Tata Trusts nominee directors as mandated by the AoA was not given. The condition failed, and so did the resolution.

Meanwhile, Tata Trusts has appointed senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for legal representation amid the escalating dispute.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appointed to represent Tata Trusts, said on Sunday he is entering the fray with “sadness and regret” as these issues could not be amicably solved.

In a post on X, the lawyer said the fundamental rights of shareholder-owners cannot be nullified in the manner in which they have been.

“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 socalled 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,” Singhvi said.

The Tata Sons board has backed a further five-year term for Natarajan Chandrasekaran, much to the opposition of Noel Tata, and challenge to the validity of the decision by the Trusts.

The Tata Sons board has favoured moving ahead with a public listing following the Reserve Bank of India’s rejection of the company’s application to surrender its registration as an upper-layer non-banking financial company (NBFC).

Tata Trusts, which collectively controls about 66% of Tata Sons, have opposed the listing, with chairman Noel Tata urging the company to explore alternatives.

Singhvi said stultifying shareholder-ownership rights would spell doomsday for corporate governance across hundreds of Indian companies.

He said to stymie democratic intra-trust decision-making by Tata Trusts by putting a sudden and completely unwarranted fetter on even convening a meeting is another matter of patent legality.

“Rupturing the over hundred years of Tata Trust and Tata Sons established hyphenated relationship and divorcing one from the other seems unthinkable."

“Ignoring the unvarying precondition of Trust unanimity in voting & the clear veto in provisions applied without cavil for decades appears patently unjustified. Sadly, the Supreme Court judgement in Tata-Mistry which clearly gave Tata Trusts primacy in the relationship with Tata Sons, upheld the special Articles in this regard in the Tata Sons articles and spoke of the fiduciary duty to millions of Indians, seems to have been selectively forgotten,” he said.

Singhvi said, in the absence of collegiality and conviviality, these and many other related issues, unfortunately, can only have legal solutions.