Both sides in the TVS family succession dispute have filed caveats across multiple courts, seeking to prevent orders being passed without hearing their arguments as the disagreement over ownership rights and the interpretation of family agreements deepens, multiple sources tell NDTV Profit.
Venu Srinivasan, his son Sudarshan Venu and certain TVS group companies have filed caveats naming Mallika Srinivasan, Lakshmi Venu and allied companies. The Mallika-Lakshmi camp has also filed caveats against Venu Srinivasan and key TVS group companies, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.
The filings were made around 10 days ago and span the Madras High Court, the City Civil Court and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The choice of forums reflects the potential legal dimensions of the dispute. A legal source aware of the developments said a potential civil suit would likely go to the Madras High Court if its valuation exceeds Rs. 1 crore, as is expected in this case.
Also Read | Layoffs Are Rising In Tech, But These Skills Are Helping People Unlock Better Pay
READ | Noel Tata Writes To Tata Sons Challenging Chandra's Reappointment, Seeks Disclosure Of Venu Srinivasan's TVS Links
Suits valued below that threshold, including those seeking injunctions, would fall before the City Civil Court, the source said. Allegations involving oppression and mismanagement, as well as corporate governance issues, could be taken to the NCLT.
The cross-filings signal that both sides are preparing for potential legal proceedings even as Mallika and Lakshmi have reiterated their preference for a negotiated settlement. “As stated earlier in their joint statement, Dr. Lakshmi Venu and Mallika Srinivasan reiterate their desire for an amicable resolution through transparent discussions and dialogue,” the mother-daughter duo said in a statement.
At the heart of the dispute is whether family agreements signed in 2020 and 2024 settled the allocation of ownership in TVS businesses or dealt primarily with their administration.
Venu and Sudarshan's camp maintains that the agreements have already settled the ownership question. Under their interpretation, TVS Holdings and other substantial parts of the business were allocated to Sudarshan, while Sundaram-Clayton and smaller businesses were allocated to Lakshmi.
The distinction has significant commercial implications. TVS Holdings owns 50.26% of TVS Motor, making it the motorcycle maker's controlling shareholder. Any dispute over the ownership or transfer of these interests could affect the group's succession arrangements and the allocation of control across its businesses.
Lakshmi's camp disputes this interpretation. Lakshmi Srinivasan has maintained that the agreements concern the administration of the businesses and do not govern the transfer of ownership. Her side is seeking a fair-value-based transfer of ownership, underscoring the disagreement over how the family's business interests should ultimately be divided.
The caveats do not, by themselves, determine the merits of the dispute. They are procedural filings intended to ensure that a court or tribunal gives the caveat-filing party an opportunity to be heard before passing an order in the relevant proceedings, subject to applicable legal requirements.
Essential Business Intelligence,
Sharp Market Insights,
Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
