Tata Sons, the Tata Group’s holding company, declined Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata’s request for an audio or video record of its Sept. 17 board meeting, adding to a dispute over Executive Chairman Natarajan Chandrasekaran’s renewed term.
A letter dated Monday, Nov. 9, reported by The Economic Times and PTI, said Tata Sons did not share recordings of in-person meetings with directors and said they were not required to be retained or shared. Company Secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay said draft minutes were uploaded Oct. 1, comments followed on Oct. 8, and directors could raise further objections when the board considers confirming the record.
The letter also addressed Hanno One Warehousing, which is associated with Chandrasekaran’s family, and TVS Motor. Tata Sons said Hanno One’s details were disclosed on April 10, 2025, to companies chaired by Chandrasekaran. It defended a TVS Motor contract with a family-linked company as not conflicting with Tata Sons’ business, The Economic Times and NDTV Profit reported. The Economic Times separately reported Tata Sons’ position that Hanno One had no transactions with Tata Sons or other Tata Group entities. The reports do not establish whether the specific TVS-Hanno arrangements were disclosed to Tata Sons’ board or nomination committee before the reappointment vote.
Karnataka government proceedings record a proposed 35-acre Hanno One industrial park for TVS Motor and its tier suppliers, with planned investment of 330 crore rupees (3.3 billion rupees) and projected employment of 1,200. The proceedings also record a Hanno One representative telling the Land Audit Committee on Nov. 6, 2025, that the company had entered an agreement with TVS Motor for a facility in Hosur.
The Indian Express and NDTV Profit reported reviewing Noel Tata’s Oct. 26 letter, which challenged the reappointment process and sought records and disclosures concerning Hanno One and TVS Motor. Tata Sons said the board approved Chandrasekaran’s renewed term by majority vote. Tata Trusts said four directors supported the resolution and Noel opposed it, calling it a “legal nullity.”
The next reported step is the board’s consideration of the minutes for confirmation. No date was given.