The conflict revolves around the division of family wealth and ownership of businesses, with the two parties holding differing views on whether a comprehensive settlement has been achieved.
In a recent development in the TVS family dispute, Mallika Srinivasan and her daughter Lakshmi Venu have reiterated their willingness to resolve the family dispute over the division of business interests through dialogue, in their response to caveats filed by Venu Srinivasan and his son Sudarshan Venu in the Madras High Court. The development comes amid an ongoing dispute within the family over the division of business interests.
“As stated earlier in their joint statement, Dr. Lakshmi Venu and Mallika Srinivasan reiterate their desire for an amicable resolution through transparent discussions and dialogue,” a statement issued on their behalf said. The statement was in response to the caveats filed by Venu and Sudarshan. Moneycontrol could not independently verify when the caveats were filed.
The caveats filed by Venu Srinivasan and Sudarshan Venu seek to ensure that they are given an opportunity to be heard before the court passes any orders on petitions concerning the dispute.
By reiterating their willingness to pursue dialogue, Mallika Srinivasan and Lakshmi Venu have indicated that they remain open to an amicable resolution rather than an adversarial legal battle.
The dispute within the family of TVS Group patriarch Venu Srinivasan centres on the division of family wealth, ownership of business interests and succession arrangements between his children, Lakshmi Venu and Sudarshan Venu.
Venu Srinivasan and his son Sudarshan maintain that the division of assets and businesses has been completed, while Mallika Srinivasan and her daughter Lakshmi contend that no comprehensive economic settlement has been reached.
In earlier joint statements, Mallika and Lakshmi disputed that the March 2024 memorandum of understanding amounted to an economic settlement, maintaining that arrangements concerning brand use, trademarks and non-compete obligations could not be treated as a division of family wealth.
