An unprecedented internal rift has erupted within India’s venerable Tata conglomerate regarding the financing of an escalating boardroom dispute between Tata Trusts and Tata Sons. Mehli Mistry, a trustee of the Tata Education and Development Trust (TEDT), has officially registered his strong objection against using the educational trust's funds to cover legal costs stemming from the high-stakes confrontation over N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as Chairman of Tata Sons.
Mistry's Formal Objection
In an email addressed to Siddhartha Sharma, CEO of Tata Trusts, and copied to Tata Trusts Chairman Noel N Tata and fellow TEDT trustee JN Mistry, Mehli Mistry emphasized that the educational entity must remain entirely separate from these ongoing legal battles. “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 reports.
Highlighting the financial independence of the philanthropic entity, Mistry made his stance unequivocally clear regarding any potential diversion of TEDT resources. He stated, “While I do not want to comment on the experience and attitude of people, I want to make it abundantly clear that TEDT will not pay any part of legal expenses towards these created disputes. TEDT is not a Tata Sons shareholder, and therefore, in that respect, stands isolated from these disputes.” Mistry has formally requested that his written objection be tabled and recorded during the next TEDT Board of Trustees meeting, scheduled for November 20, 2026.
The Core Dispute: Chandrasekaran's Reappointment
The friction originates from a contentious leadership decision at Tata Sons. N Chandrasekaran had informed the Tata Sons board on August 12, 2026, that he would not seek an extension when his term concluded on February 20, 2027. Following this, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) respected his choice and resolved to establish a Selection Committee under the company's Articles of Association (AoA) to identify a successor.
However, on September 17, the Tata Sons board voted 4:1 to extend Chandrasekaran's tenure for another five-year term, with Noel Tata casting the sole dissenting vote. Tata Trusts, which collectively hold nearly 66 percent of Tata Sons, has since termed this reappointment a “legal nullity” and “void ab initio.” The Trusts assert that the decision failed to secure the mandatory affirmative support from its nominated directors on the Tata Sons board, as explicitly required by the Articles of Association.
Legal Heavyweights and Past Precedent
The conflict pits two of India's most prominent legal minds against each other. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing Tata Trusts, advocating for shareholder primacy and governance rights. Conversely, Senior Advocate Harish Salve is advising Tata Sons Chairman N Chandrasekaran, arguing against corporate deadlock and backing the board's decision.
The concern over funding is sharpened by historical precedent. During the protracted corporate battle involving former chairman Cyrus Mistry, Tata Sons and Tata Trusts together reportedly spent approximately ₹200 crore in legal fees, while the opposing Mistry camp incurred around ₹50 crore.
Mehli Mistry, a long-time close associate of the late Ratan Tata and first cousin to the late Cyrus Mistry, previously served on both the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. His tenure at those trusts faced strain last year when fellow trustees, including Noel Tata, declined to support renewing his term.