this story originally appeared in on jan 9 2017mumbai tata sons chairman emeritus ratan tata and its ousted chairman cyrus mistry have had developed difference of opinion as early as in 2013 private correspondence between the two reveals tata in a handwritten letter dated september 24 2013 seemed alarmed at what he thought were clear conflicts that mistry as chairman of tata sons should avoid this included disassociating himself mistry from family businesses to ensure that there was no conflict of interest brought about by the personal holdings in tata group companies according to tatarsquos letter this was confirmed as discussed by the selection committee and agreed by mistry the letter went on to prod mistry to set up a lsquoblind trustrsquo that will disassociate the latter from his tata shareholding and also not to have any transaction of business between shapoorji pallonji group and tata group as long as mistry was its chairman blind trust is a popular concept abroad when individuals are keen to avoid any conflicts with another entity their firm has a relationship with it allows the owner of stake to relinquish the control of the company during the period when he has other responsibilities tata preferred handwritten notes in his correspondence with mistry reflecting his desire to keep differences strictly confidential between him and his then successor tata had reasoned in the said letter that while he was supportive of every action and decisions that mistry took as chairman and wanted to ensure that he would not want to be ldquoa ghost in the corridorrdquo he reminded mistry that he tata will make every effort to safeguard what is in the best interests of the tata trusts this matter for him was ldquofundamentalrdquo which if it cannot be resolved between them ldquowill necessarily have to become an issue of a more public naturerdquo tata warned in the letter mistry responded to tatarsquos letter in an email agreeing with him that issues of conflict continue to be of great concern to him but said tatarsquos letter and conversations had ldquoinsinuatedrdquo that his actions or not taking them has compromised the ethical values of the founder he reiterated that he would ensure that principles are not compromised and can stand the strictest global levels of public scrutiny tata in his letter also asked mistry to tabulate existing contracts sp group had with tata group mistry explained in his reply that time was taken only because the issue ethically emotionally and financially impacted him and because of his busy travel schedule in the face of multiple challenges faced by the group at a critical juncture