Succession battle breaks out at TVS as camps disagree over business division, family MoU

Mumbai: Deep differences over inheritance have broken out between the children of Venu and Mallika Srinivasan, of the TVS Motor and Amalgamated business groups, respectively, with differing perceptions over whether or not a family settlement has been reached, and allegations that the couple’s daughter Lakshmi Venu has been left with a marginal share in her father’s assets. The matter, simmering for nearly 18 months now, has seen futile attempts at mediation and lawyers briefed in preparation for a potential legal battle.

In the dispute, Venu Srinivasan and son Sudarshan are aligned, while wife and industrialist Mallika and daughter Lakshmi are seeking changes in how Srinivasan has divided his assets among his children.

ET spoke with a number of family insiders and executives close to the situation to piece together the contours of the dispute. All spoke on the condition of anonymity. The family members declined comment.

The central question revolves around whether or not the two companies entrusted to the next generation to manage—components and die casting business Sundaram Clayton to Lakshmi Venu and two- and three-wheeler powerhouse TVS Motor Company to Sudarshan — is also the line that divides the wealth.

Lakshmi Venu has been managing SCL, first as a joint MD and then as MD. Sudarshan Venu is chairman and MD of TVS Motors and also the MD of TVS Holdings. Lakshmi Venu is also vice chair of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd (TAFE) since March 2025. Her mother Mallika Srinivasan remains chairperson and MD of the company. TAFE was founded by Mallika's grandfather S Anantharamakrishnan.

Also read: TVS Motor’s Venu Srinivasan says India must bridge quality gap to make ‘Made in India’ a mark of trust

Division of Assets or Not?

The nearly four-time surge in the market capitalisation of TVS Motor in the last three years has accentuated the difference between assets. While Sundaram Clayton (SCL) has a market cap of Rs 24,000 crore, TVS Motor Co has a market cap of Rs 1.83 lakh crore as of market close on Thursday.

The dispute has put the spotlight on a two-year-old memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed among the four family members on 21 March 2024. People familiar with the understanding on the side of Venu and Sudarshan say the MoU was a division of the family assets, while sources close to Mallika and Lakshmi say it only dealt with use of brand and non-compete clauses and was never meant to be a division of assets.

In April 2025, exchanges were notified that Sudarshan Venu has become a beneficial owner in TVS Holdings, the parent of TVS Motor. In other words, the process of transfer of ownership to Sudarshan had commenced.

A person close to Lakshmi Venu said since the notification, she has been seeking a clarification from Venu and Sudarshan but has been met with silence. “There has never been any discussion in the family about a split of assets in this manner. Management and ownership are different matters. The two of them have been managing two companies but how can that translate into ownership without a family-led settlement process?” the person said.

The perception on the other side of the family, however, is different. And that is linked to another MoU, signed by a wider family group on the TVS side.

In 2020, the four branches of the TVS Group agreed to split holding structures to eliminate cross-holdings and align corporate ownership directly with the respective family branches managing them. This was formalised through a December 10, 2020, family agreement following a formal valuation and settlement process.

The branch of the family headed by Venu Srinivasan received full and clear control of the group’s flagship automotive and manufacturing businesses.

Through a court-approved corporate restructure, their shareholding in SCL was subsequently vested into a holding entity, TVS Holdings Pvt Ltd. The Venu Srinivasan family also inherited around Rs 2,000 crore of liabilities payable to other family branches.

Currently, TVS Holdings owns 50.26% of TVS Motors. The Srinivasan family through its trust directly holds a majority interest in SCL.

Subsequent to the broader TVS family settlement, people close to Venu and Sudarshan say, the Venu Srinivasan family reached an understanding that Lakshmi would get SCL from Venu’s side and TAFE from her mother’s side, while Sudarshan would get TVS Motor. The MoU of 2024 and the subsequent execution of beneficial ownership are all part of that, they say.

Management vs Ownership

People close to Mallika said the family’s wealth is separate from management and that mediation can resolve differences. They are of the view that both Sudarshan and Lakshmi have equal rights over the Venu Srinivasan family wealth.

The Srinivasan group, though, has no control over TAFE and including it in any conversation regarding Venu Srinivasan’s business empire is mischievous, according to them. Mallika is one of its shareholders and oversees its operations as its custodian, they said.

“The settlement was based on valuations as of December 10, 2020, while the underlying family understanding went back to 2016. The settlement obligations payable to the other family branches were subsequently discharged in full,” said one of the persons cited. “This was based on fair valuations prevailing at the time and was mutually agreed upon and implemented by the concerned family members. Subsequent changes in business performance or valuation cannot, by themselves, be a basis to reopen a family settlement that has been acted upon.”

“No economic settlement was ever initiated, let alone concluded, nor was any valuation undertaken at any point,” said another executive close to Lakshmi Venu and privy to the matter. “Indeed, 2016 predates the TVS family separation of 2020 itself and, hence, cannot be relevant. It is, therefore, incorrect to suggest that the businesses have been settled in favour of Sudarshan individually. In the absence of any settlement, the Venu Srinivasan family properties or assets do, in fact, remain family property, in which both siblings have an equal share.”

The people cited said Lakshmi got a better deal as per the 2024 MoU. Neither Mallika nor Lakshmi contributed toward the Rs 2,000-crore settlement obligations of 2020, stemming from the TVS family accord, they said. Sudarshan and Venu Srinivasan organised the funds by selling 7% of TVS Motors and settled the dues, they added.

Mallika had conveyed privately that she would transfer her corporate interests — including TAFE — to Lakshmi and not to Sudarshan, according to the people cited. This, however, has been denied by people close to Mallika, who said she has, on no forum, made any such claims.

“It is Venu Srinivasan’s personal decision as to how he chooses to settle his property, including with the objective of ensuring business longevity and institution building,” said one of the people cited. Mallika Srinivasan has an equal and independent freedom to decide how she wishes to settle her own property, the person added.

People close to Mallika repudiated the claim that Venu Srinivasan is free to make a personal decision over family assets.

The latest round of the family kerfuffle comes within seven months of another boardroom battle in Sundaram Clayton. Within a span of three days, the company end of March had overturned a board decision that accepted the resignation of its company secretary only to reappoint him after Venu Srinivasan, SCL’s chairman emeritus, took over as the company’s chairman from retired bureaucrat R Gopalan, raising questions about decision-making at the company. ET had in April reported that tensions between Venu and Lakshmi had spilled into the company’s boardroom, with her father taking on a larger governance role while she continued to focus on the business.