India, Sept. 22 -- The latest Tata Sons boardroom battle over N Chandrasekaran's reappointment has revived legal questions that were examined in detail by the Supreme Court five years ago in the Cyrus Mistry case, particularly the interplay between Articles 104B, 118 and 121 of the company's Articles of Association (AoA).

Tata Trusts chairperson Noel Tata has assailed the September 17 resolution reappointing Chandrasekaran for another five years, arguing that the board used a different constitutional route from the one followed when Chandrasekaran was reappointed in 2022. The Trusts contend that the affirmative support of a majority of their nominee directors was a condition for a valid resolution and that a chairman's casting vote could...