Tata Trusts' vice chairmen Vijay Singh and Venu Srinivasan rebut claims by Darius Khambata

Mumbai: Tata Trusts vice chairmen Vijay Singh and Venu Srinivasan hit back at Darius Khambata, rebutting point by point the senior advocate's criticism of the events at Tata Sons in the letter communicating his decision not to seek reappointment as a trustee.

In a November 11 reply to Khambata's letter, they asked whether his real concern was preserving the Tata model or the current Trust leadership's control over Tata Sons. The letter, signed by both Singh and Srinivasan, said while they did not question Khambata's sincerity, they found his account "incomplete in several material respects". Independence, Singh argued, means holding allies to the same standard as opponents.

In his November 2 letter addressed to Trusts chairman Noel Tata, Khambata had criticised Tata Sons' engagement with the RBI over its regulatory status, and raised concerns over the proposed listing of the company, the independence of trustees and governance issues within the Tata Group.


Singh rejected the claim that Tata Sons' engagement with the RBI was neither meaningful nor successful.

Also Read | Tata Sons rejects Noel's demand for September 17 board meet recording at which N Chandrasekaran was reappointed chairman

Talks began in 2023, leading to debt repayment and a deregistration application in March 2024. Trustees were kept informed, and none, Khambata included, called the effort inadequate then. After a two-year review, the RBI held that Tata Sons remains a systemically significant NBFC bound by the listing framework. That was a regulator's verdict, not a failure of advocacy, he wrote, adding that "meaningful" advocacy seeking preferential treatment would not fit the Tata ethos.

Both Singh and Srinivasan saw no evidence that listing was an existential threat, as claimed by Khambata. Foundation-anchored firms such as Novo Nordisk, Hershey, Lundbeck and Demant are listed, as is TCS, whose Tata character has never been questioned. Listed group companies, including TCS, Tata Steel, Tata Power and Tata Motors, have made long-gestation, nation-building bets, among them Tata Motors' Jaguar Land Rover turnaround and EV lead. Disclosure brings discipline, not limits on vision, they wrote. The Trusts would remain shareholders, with dividends and philanthropy unaffected, so there would be no "decoupling".

Also Read | Indications of ‘parallel power centres’: Recent succession calls spotlight Noel's rift with Tata Sons

Invoking JRD Tata's "Whatever India needs" statement, they said national service included respect for laws and institutions, even when a regulator's decision was unwelcome. He asked whether the concern was the model or control. The Trusts are tax-exempt charities, where control becomes an end in itself, questions arise over trustees' fiduciary duties and the exemption, he said.

Singh disputed Khambata's reading of SC's Tata v Mistry ruling. It upheld Tata Sons' Articles of Association but did not extinguish a director's fiduciary duty to the company or turn Trust nominees into delegates bound to vote Trusts' line, he said.