In this continuous debate over the leadership of Tata group, Tata Sons has rejected the dissent of Noel Tata who was the Chairman of Tata Trusts. The reason why Noel Tata had challenged the reappointment of Chandrasekaran. However, Tata Sons has strongly maintained that the reappointment of Chandrasekaran was made by the majority vote of the board, and the entire process has been carried out according to the law.

This entire situation revolves around Article 118 of the Articles of Association of Tata Sons. As per this article, if the Tata Trusts hold at least 40 percent of the company's paid-up equity share capital, then a special selection committee shall be established to appoint a chairman. This committee would include nominees from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust. The same procedure applies to the removal of the chairman.

In response to Noel Tata's objection, Tata Sons, in a letter dated September 24, stated that the procedure under Article 118 applies to the initial appointment of a new chairman. According to the company, this rule does not apply to the reappointment of the current chairman. Tata Sons also cited the opinions of renowned legal experts in the country to support its stance. The company stated that the board had passed a majority resolution to reappoint Chandrasekaran as chairman after the expiry of his current term.

Following Noel Tata's objection, Tata Sons sought legal advice on the matter from senior lawyer Sudipta Sarkar, former Chief Justice Uday Lalit, and former Supreme Court judge BN Srikrishna. According to Tata Sons, the three legal experts agreed and deemed Chandrasekaran's reappointment valid. Based on this legal opinion, the company has justified its decision.

In this continuous debate over the leadership of Tata group, Tata Sons has rejected the dissent of Noel Tata who was the Chairman of Tata Trusts. The reason why Noel Tata had challenged the reappointment of Chandrasekaran. However, Tata Sons has strongly maintained that the reappointment of Chandrasekaran was made by the majority vote of the board, and the entire process has been carried out according to the law.

This entire situation revolves around Article 118 of the Articles of Association of Tata Sons. As per this article, if the Tata Trusts hold at least 40 percent of the company's paid-up equity share capital, then a special selection committee shall be established to appoint a chairman. This committee would include nominees from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust. The same procedure applies to the removal of the chairman.

In response to Noel Tata's objection, Tata Sons, in a letter dated September 24, stated that the procedure under Article 118 applies to the initial appointment of a new chairman. According to the company, this rule does not apply to the reappointment of the current chairman. Tata Sons also cited the opinions of renowned legal experts in the country to support its stance. The company stated that the board had passed a majority resolution to reappoint Chandrasekaran as chairman after the expiry of his current term.

Following Noel Tata's objection, Tata Sons sought legal advice on the matter from senior lawyer Sudipta Sarkar, former Chief Justice Uday Lalit, and former Supreme Court judge BN Srikrishna. According to Tata Sons, the three legal experts agreed and deemed Chandrasekaran's reappointment valid. Based on this legal opinion, the company has justified its decision.