Tata Boardroom Battle: Who Will Pay For Noel Tata-N Chandrasekaran Legal Fight?

Mehli Mistry has objected to any possible use of the trust's funds to meet legal expenses linked to the Tata Trusts-Tata Sons dispute.

21 Sep 2026, 01:42 · NDTV

Show
Quick Read
Summary is AI-generated, newsroom-reviewed

Tata Sons board dispute raises question of who will fund legal battle
Mehli Mistry objects to Tata Education Trust paying legal expenses in fight
Senior advocates Singhvi and Salve represent opposing sides in corporate dispute

What is the next step in this Tata conflict?

The Tata Sons boardroom battle is now raising a new question: who will pay for the legal fight?

As the dispute between Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata and Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran heads towards a possible legal showdown, the issue of legal expenses has come under scrutiny.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Harish Salve are now on opposite sides of the dispute. Singhvi is representing the Tata Trusts side, while Salve is advising Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran. Their involvement has added another dimension to an already high-stakes corporate battle.

Also Read | Layoffs Are Rising In Tech, But These Skills Are Helping People Unlock Better Pay

But even before the legal battle reaches the courts, there is a question over the source of funds that could be used to fight it.

Mehli Mistry Objects To TEDT Paying Legal Bills

Mehli Mistry, a trustee of the Tata Education and Development Trust (TEDT), has objected to any possible use of the trust's funds to meet legal expenses linked to the Tata Trusts-Tata Sons dispute.

According to news agency ANI, Mistry wrote an email to Tata Trusts CEO Siddhartha Sharma. The email was also copied to Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata and fellow TEDT trustee JN Mistry.

In the email, Mistry said TEDT would not bear any part of the legal expenses related to the dispute. "I am saddened to read about the litigation between Trustees, Tata Sons and Tata Trusts. This has been unprecedented over the past 150 years!" Mistry wrote, according to ANI.

Mistry further said that TEDT was not a shareholder in Tata Sons and therefore should remain separate from the dispute. He also asked for his objection to be placed before the TEDT Board of Trustees and recorded at its next meeting, scheduled for November 20, 2026.

Importantly, Mistry's objection does not establish that TEDT funds are currently being used to pay lawyers. Nor does it say that such spending has already been approved. The issue is about the possibility of TEDT being asked to contribute to legal costs arising from the dispute.

Why Legal Expenses Have Become A Flashpoint

The question matters because Tata Trusts and Tata Sons have entered a serious governance dispute. On September 17, the Tata Sons board approved another five-year term for N Chandrasekaran as chairman. Noel Tata opposed the move.

Tata Trusts subsequently challenged the validity of the resolution, saying the required affirmative support from its nominee directors was not secured. The Trusts called the resolution a "legal nullity" and said it was "void ab initio".

The dispute centres on Tata Sons' Articles of Association and the special rights associated with Tata Trusts' nominees on the board. The Trusts collectively hold around 66 per cent of Tata Sons. The two principal trusts, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust, together hold more than half of Tata Sons.

This makes the dispute more than a disagreement over one chairman's tenure. It involves questions about the governance structure of Tata Sons and the relationship between the company and its largest shareholder.

Singhvi vs Salve: Legal Battle Takes Shape

The legal divide has already become visible. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing the Tata Trusts side. He has argued that shareholder rights and the special governance provisions governing the Trusts' relationship with Tata Sons cannot simply be overridden.

Harish Salve, advising Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran, has taken a different view. He has argued that a company cannot be allowed to remain in a deadlock and has backed the board's ability to take decisions.

Both lawyers are among India's most prominent senior advocates. Their involvement signals that the dispute could develop into a major corporate governance case.

And that is where the question raised by Mistry becomes significant. If the dispute turns into prolonged litigation, the legal bills could become substantial. The immediate question is not simply how much the lawyers will charge, but which Tata entity should bear those costs.

Tata Trusts Have Faced Legal Bills Before

There is also a precedent for large legal expenses in Tata-related corporate disputes. The previous major governance battle involving the Tata Group was the long-running litigation involving former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry.

According to media reports, Tata Sons and the Tata Trusts together spent around Rs 200 crore on legal fees. The Mistry side was estimated to have spent around Rs 50 crore. That history puts the latest debate over legal expenses into perspective.

The current dispute could involve multiple legal questions, including the validity of Chandrasekaran's reappointment, the powers of Tata Trusts' nominee directors and the future of Tata Sons. For the trusts, the question of who pays for the litigation is therefore not merely an accounting matter.

Who Is Mehli Mistry?

Mehli Mistry has been a long-time figure in the Tata ecosystem and was regarded as a close associate of the late Ratan Tata.

His association with Ratan Tata dates back decades. Mistry first met Tata when he was 10 years old, when their families lived in the same apartment complex. The two later became close friends.

Mistry also has a family connection to the Shapoorji Pallonji Group. He is the first cousin of Shapoorji Mistry and the late Cyrus Mistry, who was once chairman of Tata Sons.

He served as a trustee of both the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. His tenure at those trusts, however, came under strain last year when fellow trustees, including Noel Tata, did not support renewing his term.

Got a follow‑up question on this article? Go on

How may i help you today

Show full article

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world