Venu Srinivasan, the chairman emeritus of TVS Motor, is at the centre of the ongoing Tata Sons power struggle after backing N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as chairman despite opposition from Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata.
A year later, Noel joined fellow trustees in unanimously supporting Srinivasan’s reappointment as vice-chairman under a framework intended to give trustees lifetime tenures, Bloomberg reported. That earlier alignment changed ahead of the crucial Tata Sons board meeting, when Srinivasan backed Chandrasekaran’s reappointment despite Noel Tata’s opposition, Bloomberg reported. In April, he complained to the state-level regulator overseeing charities about the governance structure of the trust, where he is himself a trustee, Bloomberg reported. Mint reported that TVS Motor and Pranav Chandrasekaran did not respond to its queries. (With inputs from Varun Sood, Satish John)
His position has now also come under scrutiny after links between Chandrasekaran’s family and TVS Motor emerged. Srinivasan was among four Tata Sons directors who supported a fresh five-year term for Chandrasekaran, while Noel Tata opposed the move. He studied engineering at the College of Engineering, Guindy, part of Anna University, before completing a management degree at Purdue University in the United States. Srinivasan took over as managing director of what was then Sundaram-Clayton’s two-wheeler business in the early 1980s. He is widely credited with steering TVS Motor’s growth into one of India’s largest two- and three-wheeler manufacturers, with factories across India and units in Indonesia and the United Kingdom. He later stepped back from the company’s day-to-day leadership and became chairman emeritus of TVS Motor. He is also a member of the Tata Sons nomination and remuneration committee, which reviews the performance of the company’s chairman. Srinivasan’s position became particularly significant after he backed Chandrasekaran’s fresh term despite Noel Tata’s opposition. Srinivasan was also a key figure in a separate dispute involving the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. A business link between Chandrasekaran’s family and TVS Motor has come under scrutiny. Neither Srinivasan nor Chandrasekaran disclosed the external relationship to the Tata Sons board, citing an executive aware of the matter.
The decision has deepened the divide between Tata Sons and Tata Trusts, which together hold a 66% stake in the holding company. Srinivasan, 73, is the grandson of T V Sundaram Iyengar, who founded the TVS Group in 1911, according to LiveMint . Srinivasan has served on the Tata Sons board since 2016 and is vice-chairman of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, one of the two largest charitable trusts that control Tata Sons. He and Noel Tata are the two Tata Trusts representatives on the Tata Sons board, reflecting the Trusts’ 66% combined stake in the company. Srinivasan had backed Noel Tata to succeed Ratan Tata as chairman of Tata Trusts in 2024. The Tata Trusts later said in a May 16 statement that they were unaware of his complaint until the regulator directed the trust to defer a board meeting. Chandrasekaran’s wife Lalitha and son Pranav are directors of Hanno One Warehousing, incorporated in March 2025, according to Mint . In June 2025, TVS Motor leased 17 acres in Tamil Nadu’s Krishnagiri district to Hanno One. HDFC Bank later offered the company a ₹ 60 crore construction loan for a 3.3 lakh sq ft warehouse project estimated to cost ₹ 106.3 crore. Tata Sons said Hanno One’s incorporation had been disclosed in April 2025 and that the transaction did not need to be disclosed to Tata Sons or Tata companies.
Because the required quorum could not be met, the resulting restrictions contributed to the deferment of Tata Sons’ annual shareholder meeting.
Srinivasan started his career as a mechanic in his own garage, according to Bloomberg. Srinivasan is currently the longest-serving member of the Tata Sons board, giving him institutional experience that predates almost everyone now involved in the dispute, according to Bloomberg . Tata Trusts said Srinivasan had not made such a disclosure to its trustees.
