Less than a year after the passing of the iconic Ratan Tata, the Tata Group, India's most valuable conglomerate, faced internal turmoil once again in 2025. This time, the battleground shifted from the holding company to the philanthropic heart of the empire: the Tata Trusts. A fresh chapter in the Tata versus Mistry saga unfolded, featuring new protagonists and governance disputes that ultimately required government intervention.
The Protagonists and the Core Conflict
The 2025 sequel pitted Noel Tata, Ratan Tata's stepbrother and Chairman of Tata Trusts since October 2024, against trustee Mehli Mistry. Mistry, with ties to the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) family which owns 18.37% of Tata Sons, was a close confidant of the late Ratan Tata. The usually quiet Tata Trusts, which holds a decisive ~66% stake in Tata Sons, found itself in headlines due to infighting among its trustees over board appointments and governance.
The dispute centered on allegations of poor communication, conflict of interest, and lack of transparency. Trustees led by Mehli Mistry claimed they were sidelined on major decisions, citing the Tata Motors' 3.8 billion euro acquisition of Iveco and a ₹1,000-crore funding to Tata International as examples where the Trust board was not properly informed. They also raised concerns about Noel Tata wearing multiple hats, chairing several Tata companies while serving as a Trust nominee on the Tata Sons board.
Government Steps In as Trusts Split Vertically
The situation escalated to the point where the Union government felt compelled to act. In October 2025, Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata, Tata Sons Chairman N. Chandrasekaran, Vice Chairman Venu Srinivasan, and trustee Darius Khambata met Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The ministers urged them to restore stability to ensure the $180 billion conglomerate's functioning remained unaffected.
Prior to this, the Trusts were split into two clear factions. On one side were Chairman Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan (TVS Group chairman emeritus), and former defence secretary Vijay Singh. Opposing them were four trustees: Mehli Mistry, Pramit Jhaveri, Jehangir HC Jehangir, and Darius Khambata.
The Flashpoint and an Anticlimactic Resolution
The conflict came to a head at a September 11, 2025 meeting regarding the reappointment of 77-year-old Vijay Singh as a nominee director on the Tata Sons board. A post-Ratan Tata policy required annual reappointment of directors over 75. While Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan proposed Singh's continuation, the four other trustees opposed it, leading to the resolution's rejection.
This triggered a counter-move where the four trustees sought to nominate Mehli Mistry to the Tata Sons board, which was blocked by Noel Tata's group. Subsequently, Vijay Singh resigned voluntarily. The timing was critical, coinciding with the September 30, 2025 deadline set by the RBI for the public listing of Tata Sons, classified as an upper-layer shadow bank.
Adding external pressure, SP Group Chairman Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry reiterated calls for a Tata Sons IPO to bring transparency, leveraging the family's 18.37% stake.
Unlike the intense 2016 battle, the 2025 conflict ended quietly. Mehli Mistry, whose three-year term ended in 2025, was not reappointed after objections from Noel Tata's group. Although Mistry filed a caveat petition, he ultimately chose peace, writing to Noel Tata about his decision to part ways with the Tata group.
Delicate Balance and Lasting Implications
The episode revealed the fragile power balance within the Tata empire. Noel Tata managed to secure his son Neville Tata's entry only onto the board of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT). His entry into the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) was blocked by Venu Srinivasan, indicating that consensus within the Trusts remains delicate.
This internal struggle, occurring against the backdrop of regulatory deadlines and historical SP Group tensions, underscores the ongoing governance challenges for India's largest industrial house in the post-Ratan Tata era. The resolution, while avoiding public legal warfare, leaves questions about succession and decision-making protocols within the influential Tata Trusts.
