塔塔信托主席诺埃尔·塔塔于9月30日致信塔塔之子董事会，要求提供9月17日董事会会议的视频录像和会议纪要，该会议重新任命N·钱德拉塞卡兰为主席，据知情人士透露。
Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata, on September 30, wrote to the Tata Sons board seeking the video recording and minutes of the September 17 board meeting that reappointed N Chandrasekaran as chairman, according to people aware of the matter.
在信中，诺埃尔·塔塔表示，他在会议上未获得充分机会提交他从印度前首席大法官D·Y·钱德拉丘德处获得的法律意见。他还声称，重新任命决议是作为董事会提名与薪酬委员会的汇报而通过的，并质疑用于验证重新任命的法律意见。9月17日发生了什么塔塔之子董事会以4比1的投票结果批准了钱德拉塞卡兰的第三任期。钱德拉塞卡兰未参与投票。诺埃尔·塔塔投了反对票，而董事会中另一位塔塔信托提名的董事维努·斯里尼瓦桑投了赞成票。
In his letter, Noel Tata has said he was not given an adequate opportunity at the meeting to present a legal opinion he had obtained from former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. He has also claimed that the reappointment resolution was passed as a debrief from the board's nomination and remuneration committee and has questioned the legal opinions relied on to validate the reappointment. What happened on September 17The Tata Sons board approved Chandrasekaran's third term by a 4-1 vote. Chandrasekaran did not vote. Noel Tata voted against the resolution, while Venu Srinivasan, the other Tata Trusts nominee on the board, voted in favour.
知情人士此前曾告诉CNBC-TV18，由于两位信托提名董事意见分歧，决定权随即落到了董事会提名与薪酬委员会主席哈里什·曼瓦尼手中。
With the 2 Trusts nominees split, the decision then went to Harish Manwani, chairman of the board's nomination and remuneration committee, sources had told CNBC-TV18.
这一分歧是争议的核心。根据塔塔之子的公司章程，需要董事会多数通过的决议，还必须获得信托提名董事多数的赞成票。由于双方提名董事各投一票，塔塔信托认为未达到所需的多数票，该决议无效。塔塔之子则坚持认为，提名董事1比1打平属于平票，可由决定性一票打破僵局，并辩称该决议在法律上有效。钱德拉丘德的意见内容知情人士称，钱德拉丘德的意见日期为5月，并非专门为9月会议而寻求。该意见涉及根据公司章程董事会任命主席的流程。
That split is at the heart of the dispute. Under Tata Sons' Articles of Association, decisions that need a board majority must also carry the affirmative vote of a majority of the Trusts' nominee directors. With 1 nominee voting each way, Tata Trusts argues the required majority was never met and the resolution is invalid. Tata Sons maintains that a 1-1 split among the nominees is a tie, which can be broken by a casting vote, and has defended the resolution as legally valid. What Chandrachud's opinion saysThe Chandrachud opinion is dated May and was not sought specifically for the September meeting, people aware of the matter said. It deals with the board's process for appointing a chairperson under the company's articles.
根据CNBC-TV18看到的意见，公司章程中的肯定投票权对于确立控制权和保障各方利益至关重要。
According to the opinion seen by CNBC-TV18, affirmative voting rights in a company's articles are central to establishing control and safeguarding the interests of the parties.
当公司章程要求决议必须获得特定董事群体中指定多数的支持时，主席的决定性一票无法补足那张缺失的选票。钱德拉丘德还指出，决定性一票仅适用于全体董事会出现平票的情况，而不适用于两位特定董事之间的平票，且既定原则是决定性一票不能用于在原本不存在多数的情况下制造多数。
Where the articles require a resolution to have the support of a specified majority of a particular group of directors, the chairperson's casting vote cannot supply that missing vote. Chandrachud has also said that a casting vote applies only when there is a tie among the board as a whole, not between 2 specific directors, and that it is a well-settled principle that a casting vote cannot be used to create a majority where none exists.
关于连任，该法律意见认为，即使现任主席获连任，新任期也将是一个全新的主席任期，而非现有任期的延续。意见补充道，如果不遵循第118条规定的程序，董事会可能会反复连任现任主席，从而有效规避寻求意见者的权利。后续发展诺埃尔·塔塔要求提供视频和会议纪要，是自投票以来这场不断升级的斗争中的最新一步。据消息人士透露，塔塔资公司于9月24日致函他，为该决议的有效性进行辩护，称其符合公司章程。信托方则宣布该连任无效。
On reappointment, the opinion says that even if an incumbent is reappointed as chairperson, the new term would be a fresh chairmanship and not a continuation of the existing one. If the process under Article 118 is not followed, the board could repeatedly reappoint the incumbent, effectively circumventing the rights of those who sought the opinion, it adds. What comes nextNoel Tata's request for the video and minutes is the latest step in a fight that has been escalating since the vote. According to sources, Tata Sons wrote to him on September 24 defending the resolution as valid under the articles. The Trusts have called the reappointment void.
如果记录显示决定性一票是如何被使用的，它们可能成为任何法律挑战的核心。塔塔信托有选择向国家公司法法庭（NCLT）或孟买高等法院提起诉讼，挑战9月17日的决议。主席的决定性一票能否凌驾于信托方的肯定投票权之上，尚未在法庭上接受检验。信托内部的裂痕与此同时，西尔·多拉吉·塔塔信托的两位副主席维努·斯里尼瓦桑和维杰·辛格致函，对信托方近期向塔塔资公司发出的重组提案提出质疑。
If the records show how the casting vote was used, they could become central to any legal challenge. Tata Trusts has the option of moving the NCLT or the Bombay High Court against the September 17 resolution. Whether a chairman's casting vote can override the Trusts' affirmative voting rights is yet to be tested in court. Rift within the TrustsMeanwhile, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, both vice chairmen of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust , have written questioning the Trusts' recent restructuring proposal to Tata Sons.
据CNBC-TV18看到的9月29日信件显示，他们表示在提案发送给塔塔资公司前，并未召开SDTT受托人会议，且不清楚该提案是否获得全体受托人支持。二人还分别向马哈拉施特拉邦慈善专员提出了申诉。
In a September 29 letter, seen by CNBC-TV18, they said no meeting of SDTT trustees was held before the proposal was sent to Tata Sons and that it was unclear whether it had the support of all trustees. The 2 have also separately approached the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner.
斯里尼瓦桑要求对SDTT的治理进行调查，并质疑诺埃尔·塔塔作为永久受托人的资格，而辛格表示他也提出过类似担忧。随后，诺埃尔·塔塔及其儿子内维尔向专员提交了禁令申请。SDTT和西尔·拉坦·塔塔信托（SRTT）是塔塔资公司的两大股东。由于SRTT被马哈拉施特拉邦慈善专员禁止召开受托人会议，SDTT实际上已成为信托基金控制塔塔资公司的唯一杠杆。这使得SDTT内部的斗争——斯里尼瓦桑和辛格正在挑战诺埃尔·塔塔——与塔塔资董事会会议室内的斗争同样重要。
Srinivasan has sought an inquiry into SDTT's governance and questioned Noel Tata's status as a perpetual trustee, while Singh has said he raised similar concerns. Noel Tata and his son Neville have since filed caveats with the Commissioner.SDTT and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust are Tata Sons' 2 largest shareholders. With SRTT barred by the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner from convening trustee meetings, SDTT is now effectively the Trusts' only lever over Tata Sons. That makes the fight inside SDTT, where Srinivasan and Singh are now challenging Noel Tata, as important as the one in the Tata Sons boardroom.