Bengaluru/Mumbai, Sept. 18 -- An unprecedented revolt at Tata Sons has plunged India's largest conglomerate into a critical governance crisis, after directors voted to grant chairman N Chandrasekaran a fresh five-year extension in the face of objections by Noel Tata, who chairs the charitable trusts holding a majority share of the company. Tata termed the decision a "legal nullity" and vowed to press on with the search for a successor, opening up a chasm between the holding company and its majority-owner that lawyers expect to play out in courts. After a meeting that ran close to four hours, the six-member board reappointed Chandrasekaran for five more years when his term ends on 20 February. Four directors voted in favour, while Tata voted against. Trustee-nominee Venu Srinivasan sided with the majority. Tata Sons said: "At the meeting of the board on September 17, 2026, Chandra acceded to the board's request to reconsider his decision. The board thereafter resolved by a majority vote to re-appoint him as executive chairman for a further term of five years upon the expiry of his current tenure." The company added that "the board also resolved to initiate steps to comply with the applicable RBI Guidelines and will seek guidance from RBI, Tata Trusts and other stakeholders on applicable compliance requirements." The conflict holds deep implications for Tata Sons' mandate to go public, the Shapoorji Pallonji Group's hopes to reduce debt, and future relationship between the philanthropic bodies and the business conglomerate. Tata Trusts termed the resolution illegal. "The resolution seeking to reappoint Mr. N. Chandrasekaran in the board meeting today, with four directors voting in favour, and Mr Noel Tata against, was a legal nullity in view of the provisions of the Articles of Association of Tata Sons," it said. The Trusts said the process "requires a majority of the Trusts' nominee directors voting in favour of the resolution," and "applies equally to a first appointment and to reappointing someone who already holds the office." The board, it argued, "cannot lawfully hold a meeting or pass a resolution on the chairman's appointment or reappointment unless both nominee directors are present, and cannot validly pass such a resolution unless both nominee directors vote in favour. Given that Mr Noel Tata, being one of the Trust nominee directors, voted against the proposal, it was rendered legally void and without any basis." In a statement to the board, Tata cast the reappointment as an attempt to reverse a settled decision. He said Chandrasekaran had written to the board on 12 August that he would not seek a further term-"That was his own decision". Meanwhile, Tata Sons said its board had received the Trusts' "unanimous resolution dated July 28, 2025 expressing their appreciation of the chairman of Tata Sons. for his stewardship of the group from 2017 onwards," recommending a fresh term, and had "agreed in principle" in September 2025. But "in February 2026, in the absence of unanimity, the resolution was deferred for decision," and in "May 2026 and June 2026, this matter was discussed but was not resolved", it said. Under Section 121 of the Tata Sons articles of association, a majority vote of the Tata Trustees' nominees is needed to appoint and reappoint Chandrasekaran. Since Noel voted against and Srinivasan voted in favour of third term, the vote deadlocked. As Chandrasekaran was an 'interested party', he recused himself from the proceedings of this crucial resolution, according to an executive privy to the development. Tata Sons chair of the nomination and remuneration panel Harish Manwani presided over the resolution to grant a new term to the Tata Sons chair....