Insinuations that the Mehli Mistry-led group of trustees on the Board of Tata Trusts had attempted a coup or takeover on September 11, 2025 are “absurd,” board member and life trustee Darius J. Khambata wrote in a recent letter to the board of the Tata Trusts.
Mr. Khambata added that neither did he nor anyone else have any intention to carry out such an act, nor did they “even remotely suggest this.” Noting that what was involved was “a difference of approach” on the issue of “representation of the Trusts through its nominee Directors on the board of Tata Sons,” he added, “That representation is a duty to the Trusts, not a prize.”
In his letter, dated November 10 and reviewed by The Hindu, Mr. Khambata did however acknowledge that “a greater attempt at forging a consensus should have been made by all,” referring to the split in the Tata Trusts board.
The events of September 11, 2025 pertained to a board vote on whether Vijay Singh (77) should continue as a nominee director on the board of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group.
The vote had become necessary following the introduction of a rule, following the death of Ratan Tata, that required the annual reappointment of nominees above the age of 75.
‘Pained over coup insinuation’
The controversy over a purported ‘coup’ arose because the vote — usually a unanimous one — was defeated, with four members opposing Mr. Singh’s renewal. The four to vote against the renewal were Mehli Mistry, Pramit Jhaveri, Jehangir HC Jehangir, and Mr. Khambata.
“The events of the past few weeks have distressed me: particularly the spin doctored media narrative,” Mr. Khambata wrote in his letter.
“What has pained me the most is the insinuation that the events of our meeting of 11 September 2025 signified some kind of “coup” or “takeover,” Mr. Khambata added. “This is absurd. I had no such intention and I believe neither did anyone else. Nothing we did even remotely suggests this.”
At the heart of the issue between the two camps was a difference of opinion on how the governance of the Tata Trusts should be conducted and on the representation of the Trusts through their nominee directors on the board of Tata Sons.
The trustees led by Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Mr. Singh, were reportedly of the opinion that governance should continue as it so far has been done: through continuity and consensus-based decision-making. The trustees led by Mr. Mistry, however, felt differently.
“It [the vote of September 11] was a difference of approach in an annual review concerning representation of the Trusts through its nominee Directors on the board of Tata Sons,” Mr. Khambata wrote. “On 11 September I was motivated by one factor and one factor alone – viz to have a more assertive voice on the board of Tata Sons to help espouse the cause of the Trusts against listing of Tata Sons.”
No hard feelings
Mr. Khambata went on to explain that the trustees who had voted against the continuation of Mr. Singh as a Tata Sons board member “felt absolutely nothing” against Mr. Singh and “regretted that he was not present at the meeting so that we could explain our position to him, face to face.”
He also said he regretted the “unfair slant media coverage” lent to the episode and the “consequent pain” Mr. Singh had to bear.
In fact, Mr. Khambata went on to write, following the events of September 11, he twice proposed a joint statement of unity reaffirming all the trustees’ faith in Noel Tata’s leadership.
“The first time was almost immediately after 11 September and the second was the day before Ratan’s death anniversary,” Mr. Khambata wrote. “Unfortunately some of you did not respond.”
He further said that all the trustees and the Trust itself had been hurt by the “engineered media coverage,” adding that he was disappointed by the “failure of the Trusts to correct this fundamentally false narrative.”
Reiterating his approach of acting “independently and in the interests of the Trusts on an issue by issue basis,” Mr Khambata recalled disagreeing with Mr Mistry on “fundamental issues such as giving the SP group a fair exit (which I thought was essential to the interests of the Trusts) and on individual trustees communicating with Tata Sons (which I believed was impermissible). He added: “Of course Mehli later agreed to the resolution which I proposed and which was passed in July 2025, enunciating opposition to listing as not in the Trusts interests and at the same time declaring that the Trusts should seek a settlement with the SP Group.”
Moving forward
Another sign of tension within the board of trustees was the fact that Mr. Tata, Mr. Singh, and Mr. Srinivasan had not approved the reappointment of Mr. Mistry when time came for a vote on the issue. Mr. Mistry’s three-year tenure ended on October 28, following which he wrote a letter (November 4, 2025) to Mr. Tata that concluded: “I part ways with a quote that Mr Ratan N. Tata used to say to me. ‘Nobody is bigger than the institution it serves.’”
While concluding his own letter, Mr. Khambata noted that Mr. Mistry had placed the interests of the Trusts above his personal interest in his “dignified and commendable letter.”
“We should all set our personal feelings aside and work unitedly in the interests of the Trusts and in service of the great Tata legacy,” Mr. Khambata said. “That is the awesome responsibility vested in us.”
Published – November 21, 2025 12:58 pm IST
