Ownership issues cloud TVS’ Venu Srinivasan, family

Significant differences have emerged over the interpretation of ownership and succession plans among the third- and fourth-generation members of the Venu Srinivasan family, involving Venu Srinivasan, his wife Mallika, daughter Lakshmi Venu and son Sudarshan Venu, in relation to TVS Motor Company and its holding firm, TVS Holdings Limited.The differences came into focus in April 2025, The Hindu has reliably learned, when TVS Holdings disclosed that Sudarshan Venu, the 37-year-old chairman and managing director of TVS Motor Company was named as a Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO). The company’s shareholding disclosure records April 16, 2025, as the date of acquisition of his significant beneficial interest through the VS Trust, in which his father, Venu Srinivasan, is a trustee, and the Srinivasan Trust.The disclosure has drawn attention to the succession of ownership of TVS Motor, the flagship business within the TVS Group, valued at over ₹1.80 lakh crore.The disagreement centres on the interpretation of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) among the four family members, dated March 20, 2024, and executed on March 21. Its salient features were disclosed to the stock exchanges on March 22. The MoU sets out non-compete obligations and restrictions on the use of the TVS brand and trademarks in specified businesses. TVS Holdings clarified that it was not a party to the agreement.Under the disclosed terms, Mr. Sudarshan and persons controlled by him agreed not to use certain trademarks, including TVS, in specified die-casting businesses, and not to compete for a defined period in agricultural machinery, including tractors and self-propelled farm equipment. Ms. Mallika and Ms. Lakshmi, in turn, agreed not to use certain trademarks in businesses including two- and three-wheelers, financial services and real estate, and not to compete in specified vehicle-related businesses.An executive with direct knowledge of the ongoing dispute said the MoU did not discuss ownership transition. “Could we say just because N. Chandrasekaran is Chairman of Tata Sons, that he owns the company as well?” the executive asked, drawing a distinction between managing a business and owning it. The executive said attempts to seek clarity on the April 2025 SBO declaration had been met with “silence”.Ms. Lakshmi is understood to have the support of her mother, Ms. Mallika, in seeking an amicable resolution. “She wishes to sit across and settle differences,” the executive said, adding that Ms. Lakshmi sought an equal share of the business, as the division reflected in the disclosures and the MoU was considered “very unfair”.The dispute has also brought allegations of gender bias into focus. An executive said Ms. Mallika and Mr. Venu had raised their children to believe in equality as a value, and that the present arrangement was at odds with this principle. “What Ms. Lakshmi is asking for is equality in ownership, and Ms. Mallika supports her on this, but has emphasised on an amicable resolution,” the executive said. Ms. Lakshmi and Ms. Mallika are also understood to be concerned about the inclusion of the Amalgamations Group in the succession discussions. “Ms. Mallika is herself only a 10% owner in that group, so how can she speak for herself without even consulting other shareholding members of the family? She is running TAFE only as a custodian of the firm,” the executive said, describing the inclusion of the Amalgamations Group in the ownership tussle as “mischievous”.The wider family arrangement provides important context. The Memorandum of Family Arrangement, dated December 10, 2020, covered four branches of the TVS family and sought to align ownership of businesses with the branches managing them and reduce cross-holdings. The arrangement was disclosed to the stock exchanges in December 2020, with further details provided in January 2021. Its implementation involved subsequent corporate restructuring, with February 4, 2022, marking an important date in the process.The restructuring left Mr. Venu’s branch with control of the group’s flagship automotive interests through TVS Holdings, which was formed out of the restructuring of the erstwhile Sundaram-Clayton. TVS Holdings now holds 50.26% of TVS Motor Company. The separate Sundaram-Clayton entity houses the die-casting business. The ownership structure of these entities is central to the dispute as the family settlement aligned the ownership of businesses with the branches managing them.The settlement also involved obligations of about ₹2,000 crore payable to other family branches. According to TVS Holdings’ information memorandum, Sundaram-Clayton diluted about 7% of its stake in TVS Motor in FY2022, raising about ₹2,100 crore. The company’s disclosures also describe financing arrangements connected with the settlement obligations. Subsequent reports have attributed the funding and settlement of the dues to Mr. Venu Srinivasan and Mr. Sudarshan Venu.Lawyers who spoke to The Hindu said an SBO declaration, by itself, should not be construed as a transfer of ownership. Corporate lawyer Karthik Sheshadri, who practises before the Madras High Court, said the primary document underlying the declaration must be examined. “A primary document can be a trust deed, an arrangement, a transfer document, that may not necessarily be disclosed as that is not a requirement, but it has to be the basis for a SBO disclosure,” he said.“Regulatory filings can be unilateral, which is why it has irked one party. And often, such filings are done at a corporate secretarial level, and they will do it on behalf of the person who controls the company. This is where disputes arise,” Mr. Sheshadri added.