There’s a difference between an owner and Trustee!

This story can be made into an indian version of Succession

Yes, Ratan Tata kept him at arm’s length for all these years, and there may well have been a legitimate reason for doing so. Now, however, he appears intent on asserting control over the entire organisation. Perhaps this is precisely why no single chairman should be allowed to exercise ownership or control over both the Tata Trusts and Tata Sons simultaneously.

As per Noel Tata "her mother herself suggested selling Lakme." Ma'am must get her facts Right

Chandra and Venu trying to take over Tata group. Both must go.

Recognition is never bestowed merely because one ‘deserves’ it; the very notion of desert is contextual and ambiguous. It must be earned. When Ratan Tata assumed leadership, he was met not with reverence but scepticism; indeed, the same media had all but written Tata’s obituary. Yet through perseverance and judicious leadership, he prevailed, and respect followed. He made mistakes, but his resilience and integrity won affection. If Noel can unravel that enigma the art of earning respect rather than expecting it, he too will be loved!

In my opinion, Cyrus was a very very Good man too !!!!

It’s an open and shut case. The Noel Tata camp will triumph. Tata Trusts can’t be overruled on the technical grounds.

😮😮😮😮 Holding Companies must list for Public Wealth Safety.. All Business houses create such companies and are listed on Exchanges...

Everything is fair in love and war

Comi Kapoor M'am speak wonderfully and very articulate... good to hear such voices Thanks IE for this article if I may call it that

Because of Noel's such behaviour, Attitude and Adamance Ratan Tata kept him at a distsnce.  Else Rstan would have brought him when he retired.  Thst is he looked upon Cyrus

Who says? He kept the group intact. He represents the largest shareholder.
They are directors. They direct. Its the CEO who has to execute.
He was trying to kick Ratan Tata s Chairman off so that he can pick his nominee. He failed at first attempt. In 5 years he will get another chance if he is still alive.

Chandra needs to go (he is past his expiry date), you need someone new at the helm.

Very candid narrative

Always fond of stories of TATA and keep find interests on understanding the novelty of Sir Ratan Naval Tata why he aggressively was against bullying of mismanagement inside TATA was keep myself very engaging not being an employee of TATA

And who decided that ?

May the Tata group never get taken over. It would be such a bloody shame for the community 💔!

A Counterpoint to the Current discussion ....My Take as a Student of Business History

I have listened to the recent commentary around Noel Tata, N. Chandrasekaran, Cyrus Mistry, Tata Trusts and the proposed listing of Tata Sons with considerable interest.

With due respect, some of the commentary sounds more like storytelling than business history.

As someone who has studied business history and followed the Tata Group for decades, I look at this episode somewhat differently.

First, Noel Tata's performance and contribution should be judged on the basis of businesses and outcomes, not merely lineage or position. Similarly, Cyrus Mistry's tenure at Tata Sons cannot simply be reduced to a personality or boardroom story. His period at the helm has to be examined against the actual performance of the diverse Tata portfolio and the strategic decisions taken during those years.

Cyrus was selected by Ratan Tata and the Tata selection process. That makes Ratan Tata's role in that decision an important part of the history. If the leadership choice subsequently failed, history should also examine the accountability of the person who made that choice.

In my view, those roughly three years were among the most disruptive periods in Tata's modern corporate history. Whether one calls it a failure or a strategic disagreement, the consequences were significant enough that they cannot simply be attributed to Cyrus Mistry alone.

Then came N. Chandrasekaran.

He was not a member of the Tata family. He came from the professional management system of Tata Consultancy Services and took over as a professional CEO/Chairman of Tata Sons. The subsequent transformation of the group and the consolidation of several businesses need to be assessed on actual operating performance and capital allocation—not on personalities.

That is why I find the present debate fascinating from a business-history perspective.

The aviation question

The performance of Tata's aviation businesses also needs to be viewed in context.

Aviation has faced extraordinary supply-chain constraints, aircraft delivery delays and geopolitical disruptions. The closure of Pakistani airspace and the consequent routing and operational consequences are not management decisions made in a boardroom; they are geographical and geopolitical realities affecting Indian airlines.

Therefore, judging aviation performance purely through the lens of corporate leadership would be incomplete.

And then comes Tata Sons and the 18.3% question

The Shapoorji Pallonji Group holds approximately 18.37% of Tata Sons. The RBI has classified Tata Sons as an Upper Layer NBFC, and the regulatory framework has created the present listing issue.

This is where the debate becomes much larger than simply “Noel versus Chandra.”

If Tata Sons becomes publicly listed, the SP Group obtains a much clearer mechanism to monetise its substantial minority holding.

But there is an equally important historical question:

Can the Tata model remain what it has been if its principal holding company is exposed to the full pressures of public-market shareholders?

That is precisely the concern Noel Tata has raised. He has argued that Tata Sons is structurally different from an ordinary listed holding company because its majority shareholder is philanthropic and its dividends ultimately support hospitals, education, research and other social purposes.

However, we should also acknowledge the other side: Tata Sons' listing is not simply a voluntary strategic choice anymore. RBI's regulatory classification and subsequent decision have created a legal and regulatory dimension to the issue.

So saying simply “Tata does not want to list” does not capture the whole story.

The deeper question

For me, the real issue is not:

Noel vs Chandra.

Nor is it:

Ratan vs Cyrus.

It is:

What should the Tata institution look like in the next 100 years?

Can a philanthropic controlling structure continue to govern a huge diversified commercial enterprise without the discipline and transparency of public markets?

And conversely, can Tata Sons become a listed holding company without gradually changing the very philosophy that made the Tata Group distinctive?

Those are legitimate questions on both sides.

The current boardroom battle should therefore be examined through corporate governance, capital allocation, regulatory history, succession, ownership structure and actual business performance.

Not through personalities.

And certainly not through convenient storytelling.

As a student of business history, I believe the Tata story deserves something better:

less gossip, less mythology, more history; less personality politics, more evidence; and above all, an honest examination of decisions, consequences and accountability.

TATA's has done great deal to this country, no one will deny that! TATA's and India's history is intertwined, But can we risk anything when TATA's are in every important industry, especially in defense! Listing is very important, but special deal can be given given the charitable nature of the group!