TVS Motor’s Venu Srinivasan and daughter Lakshmi file caveats against each other over inheritance

Chennai | Mumbai: TVS Motor Company chairman emeritus Venu Srinivasan and daughter Lakshmi Venu have filed caveats against one another, preparing for a possible legal battle amid differences over inheritance of family businesses.

Eight caveats were filed on October 12 and 13 in Chennai civil court and commercial court, with four in each, splitting the family into two camps, people familiar with the developments said.

Venu Srinivasan has approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to file caveats, they said.


Also read: No economic settlement reached within Venu Srinivasan family, say Lakshmi, Mallika as TVS succession battle breaks

Caveats filed by him and his son Sudarshan Venu have named Lakshmi Venu, while those filed by Venu's wife Mallika Srinivasan and Lakshmi Venu have named Venu Srinivasan.

A caveat allows the person filing the caveat to ensure the court cannot grant relief against them without first giving them a chance to be heard, safeguarding them from any surprise order, explained Suruchi Suri, partner at law firm Suri & Co.

ET was the first to report on October 9 that differences over inheritance had cropped up within the family.

The caveats mark a fresh development in the family dispute over division of business interests. Lakshmi is pushing for a formal settlement while Venu and Sudarshan maintain that a settlement was reached through a memorandum of understanding signed in 2024.

Mallika and Lakshmi have reiterated "their desire for an amicable resolution through transparent discussions and dialogue," they said in a statement.

In earlier joint statements, they disputed that the March 2024 MoU amounted to an economic settlement. They argued that arrangements concerning brand use, trademarks and non-compete obligations could not be treated as a division of family wealth.

Venu Srinivasan and Sudarshan Venu have not issued any statements on the matter until press time Tuesday.

Also read: Noel Tata renews challenge to Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, questions Tata Sons board voting and conflict of interest

Filing a caveat under Section 148A Civil Procedure Code acts as a pre-emptive shield, according to Vyapak Desai, an independent counsel who practises at the Bombay High Court.

"It ensures that no ex-parte interim order - one issued without hearing the other side - can be passed against a party that expects to be challenged in court," he explained. "If anyone approaches the court seeking relief against the caveator, the caveator must be heard before any order is made."