A dispute over the economic meaning of TVS family agreements has reached legal forums, where both camps filed caveats, NDTV Profit reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
The outlet’s Oct. 27 report named the Madras High Court, City Civil Court and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as venues for the filings. The camps include Venu Srinivasan, TVS Motor’s chairman emeritus, and Sudarshan Venu, its chairman and managing director, on one side; and Mallika Srinivasan, chairperson and managing director of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., and Lakshmi Venu, managing director of Sundaram-Clayton, on the other.
NDTV Profit reported that Venu and Sudarshan’s camp reads the agreements as allocating TVS Holdings and other major businesses to Sudarshan, while Sundaram-Clayton and smaller businesses would go to Lakshmi. Mallika and Lakshmi said in a joint statement that “no economic settlement has been reached within the Venu Srinivasan family.” They called for transparent valuation, discussion and agreement.
A March 22, 2024, filing by TVS Holdings to the National Stock Exchange of India says Venu, Mallika, Lakshmi and Sudarshan executed a memorandum on March 21, dated March 20. The filing says the memorandum added to a broader family settlement based on an agreement dated Dec. 10, 2020, which took effect Feb. 4, 2022. It summarizes provisions covering TVS brand use and business restrictions, and says TVS Holdings was not a party to the memorandum. The filing’s summary does not specify an economic ownership allocation.
TVS Motor’s information memorandum records that TVS Holdings held 238,782,786 shares, or 50.26% of the automaker’s equity, as of Dec. 31, 2025. That figure describes TVS Holdings’ position in the company; NDTV Profit reported the caveats in connection with the broader family ownership dispute.
Section 148A of India’s Code of Civil Procedure lets someone expecting an application in a court case ask to receive notice. If an application is filed, the court must notify the person who lodged the caveat. The procedure does not decide the ownership dispute.
