Tata Trusts Row: Darius Khambata Rejects ‘Coup’ Claims, Reaffirms Support for Noel Tata

Senior advocate Darius J Khambata has strongly refuted suggestions that the Tata Trusts witnessed a “coup” or “takeover attempt” during a September 11, 2025, trustee meeting. In a confidential letter dated November 10, 2025, reviewed by Moneycontrol, Khambata described the “coup” narrative as “absurd” and expressed concern over what he termed a “spin doctored media narrative” surrounding the developments.

Khambata currently serves on the boards of both key Tata trusts — the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust — and has previously served as Advocate General of Maharashtra and Additional Solicitor General of India.

Letter Counters Speculation Around September 11 Meeting

The letter, addressed to Noel Tata, Chairman of both trusts, and trustees Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Pramit Jhaveri, and Jehangir HC Jehangir, pushes back firmly against claims that the September 11 meeting was intended to remove or sideline any trustee.

According to Khambata, the discussion was part of an annual review of the trusts’ representation on the Tata Sons board through their nominee directors. He emphasised that the review was a matter of duty to the trusts and not a power struggle. He also revealed that he had twice declined the late Ratan Tata’s suggestion to become a nominee director on the Tata Sons board, distancing himself from any claims of personal ambition.

Khambata wrote that those present at the meeting held “absolutely nothing against Vijay”, referring to trustee Vijay Singh, who was later voted out as a Tata Sons nominee director. He added that it was regrettable that Singh was not present “face to face” during the discussion.

Following the September 11 vote — where 4 out of 7 trustees opposed Singh’s continuation — the number of trust nominees on the Tata Sons board reduced from three to two: Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan.

Also Read: Earthquake Tremors Felt Across Kolkata and Northeast; Epicentre in Bangladesh

Key Concern: Opposition to Tata Sons Listing

Khambata stated that his primary motivation in raising concerns on September 11 was driven by one issue only — ensuring a more assertive voice on the Tata Sons board to oppose a possible listing of Tata Sons, the group’s principal holding company.

The letter notes that discussions on a potential listing had been ongoing within the trusts for “previous months”. The two trusts are the largest shareholders in Tata Sons, and nominee directors play a central role in shaping the group’s strategic direction.

Khambata wrote that it was “completely unwarranted and unfair” for him and others to face what he described as a “vilification campaign” despite speaking their minds honestly. He said he had chosen not to comment publicly so far in the “larger interests of the Trusts”.

Reaffirming Support for Noel Tata’s Leadership

Khambata also recounted the period following Ratan Tata’s passing in October 2024, stating that he and others had supported Noel Tata as the new chairman of the trusts. The proposal was first made by Mehli Mistry, and Khambata seconded it. He wrote that he had “no cause for regret”, adding that “the Tata legacy is in good hands.”

The letter further revealed that after the September 11 meeting, Khambata twice proposed a joint statement of unity, reaffirming Noel Tata’s leadership. This, he suggested, was intended to signal internal coherence despite differences in opinion regarding Tata Sons’ listing and board representation.

Calls for Unity Amid Governance Debates

Khambata argued that the controversy was the result of mischaracterisation, not a genuine struggle for control of the trusts. The letter reframes the September meeting as stemming from a “difference of approach”, not factional conflict.

He reiterated that the events did not amount to a takeover attempt and stressed the need to close ranks behind Noel Tata while continuing to deliberate governance matters, including any future listing of Tata Sons.

Moneycontrol has reached out to Khambata for further comment and has been unable to ascertain if trustees have discussed his unity proposals or responded to his letter.