CHENNAI: The Venu Srinivasan family dispute over the division of business interests has taken a legal turn, with family members filing caveats in Chennai courts to ensure they are heard before any orders are passed in proceedings related to the dispute.Persons familiar with the case confirmed that caveats had been filed by the two sides even as Venu Srinivasan’s wife Mallika Srinivasan and their daughter Lakshmi Venu reiterated their willingness to resolve the dispute amicably through dialogue.“As stated earlier, Lakshmi Venu and Mallika Srinivasan reiterate their desire for an amicable resolution through transparent discussions and dialogue,” they said on Tuesday.The dispute centres around how the family’s ownership interests and wealth should be divided between the two heirs — daughter Lakshmi Venu, vice chair of TAFE, and son Sudarshan Venu, chairman and MD of TVS Motor Company.Mallika and Lakshmi have maintained that the March 2024 memorandum of understanding (MoU) did not constitute an economic settlement. They argue that arrangements concerning brand usage, trademarks and non-compete obligations cannot be equated with a division of family wealth, and that management responsibilities are distinct from the settlement of ownership interests.The 2024 agreement was intended to prevent competition between family members and set out arrangements governing the use of TVS brands and other business interests. Mallika and Lakshmi, however, argue that no formal process involving valuation, discussions and mutual consent has been undertaken to settle the family’s economic interests.On the other hand, Venu Srinivasan, chairman emeritus of TVS Motor Company, maintains that the businesses and assets belonged to him and that he had the discretion to distribute them in the family’s best interests. He has said the separation was intended to give the next generation ownership and control, with Lakshmi taking forward the Sundaram-Clayton business and Sudarshan, the motor business.Venu maintains that the division was fair and transparent and followed consultations with the family. He has also cited factors such as Mallika’s stated intention to pass on ownership and control of TAFE to Lakshmi.The dispute appears to have intensified earlier this year following a boardroom confrontation at Sundaram-Clayton. After Lakshmi raised a governance complaint, Venu Srinivasan moved to convene an emergency board meeting. It was subsequently learnt that decisions taken by the board in the preceding days had been reversed, and he returned as CMD, while Lakshmi continued in her operational role as MD.The caveats filed by Venu, his son Sudarshan, VS Trust, Mallika and Lakshmi are intended to ensure that the parties are heard before a court passes any order in proceedings arising from the dispute. The filings signal that the family is preparing for possible legal action even as Mallika and Lakshmi continue to advocate an amicable resolution.While Venu maintains that ownership and control of the businesses have been separated between his children, Mallika and Lakshmi contend that the family’s economic interests remain unresolved.
