‘Tata being criminally destroyed’:Rahul accuses Modi, Shah of treating Indian business as ‘plaything’ amid company dispute

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday accused the BJP-led government of treating Indian businesses as its “plaything” amid a dispute over the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons. He alleged that business leaders were afraid to speak out against the government. In a post on X, Rahul Gandhi claimed that Tata was being “criminally destroyed” and questioned the silence of business leaders over the matter. Noel Tata questions validity of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment The remarks come amid a dispute within the Tata Group after Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata raised objections to Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, alleging procedural irregularities in the board meeting that approved the decision. In a letter dated October 26 to Suprakash Mukhopadhyay, Company Secretary and Group Corporate Secretary of Tata Sons, Noel Tata said the resolution was moved at the board meeting held on September 17, even though the agenda circulated to directors did not specifically mention Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. He also alleged that the company had not provided him with the meeting’s audio and video recordings, final minutes or a certified copy of the resolution, despite repeated requests. “The resolution is void,” Noel Tata stated in the letter, arguing that the reappointment did not comply with the relevant provisions of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association. According to Noel Tata, no Selection Committee was constituted under Article 118, and no recommendation from such a committee was placed before the board. He further contended that the affirmative vote of directors appointed under Article 104B, as required under Articles 118 and 121, had not been obtained. The letter also stated that the resolution had been put to a vote subject to conditions that had not been fulfilled. Noel Tata flags discrepancies in board meeting agenda Noel Tata questioned the manner in which the agenda was handled, saying the original agenda described item 7 as a “Debriefing from Nomination and Remuneration Committee”. Although the agenda was subsequently revised to include discussions on a Reserve Bank of India letter and related caveat applications, it did not explicitly refer to Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, he said. He also objected to the company treating the resolution as final while the records of the board meeting remained contested. “The recording is the only neutral record of what transpired,” Noel Tata wrote, seeking the complete audio and video recording of the September 17 meeting and any transcript of the proceedings. He said the company had failed to provide the recordings despite two written requests made over a period exceeding three weeks. Dispute over resolution records and filings Noel Tata also questioned the circulation of a certified copy of the resolution in the public domain and its reported filing with the Registrar of Companies before the minutes had been finalised. He further alleged that the company had certified the resolution as passed without referring to the conditions subject to which it was put to a vote, even as his objections and dissent remained unresolved. “It is unacceptable that, despite being a Director of the Company, I have not been furnished with certified true copy of the resolution,” he wrote, adding that he had been constrained to rely on a version circulating in the public domain. Noel Tata seeks documents and clarifications within 7 days Noel Tata has sought a series of documents and clarifications from the company within seven days. These include the meeting recordings, final or revised minutes, voting details, the formal notice and different versions of the agenda, along with documents filed with the Registrar of Companies and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. He has also requested that Tata Sons inform the Registrar in writing that the resolution’s validity is disputed by a director nominated under Article 104B and by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. Noel Tata further sought that no additional steps be taken on the resolution until the record of the meeting is settled