In 2016, the corporate world looked on in disbelief as Cyrus Mistry, heir-chosen to lead the Tata empire, was removed in a sudden board resolution hidden under “any other business.” The dramatic move exposed a bitter tussle between the Tata Trusts (led by Ratan Tata) and Mistry’s inner circle. 

Mistry, who had assumed formal leadership in December 2012, had restructured decision-making, rolled out a youthful Group Executive Council (GEC), and pushed for more aggressive restructuring across legacy units. But those very changes upset the old guard, corporate veterans, and the Trusts who regarded many of his moves as opaque and unilateral. 

Critics point to four flashpoint decisions that worsened rifts: the sale of Tata Steel UK, aggressive bets in renewables, disagreements with telecom partner DoCoMo, and pressure to divest global assets. Mistry publicly lamented being sidelined, accusing the board of denying him the chance to defend himself and acting unsympathetically. 

While legally valid, the ouster was seen by many as lacking “the Tata way.” The affair remains a cautionary tale even in corporate India’s top echelons, power, identity, and legacy continue to clash.