 "Companies, SC")
From airline disruptions and boardroom battles to inheritance feuds and courtroom reversals, corporate India delivered no shortage of drama in 2025. But beneath the headlines lay deeper questions about governance, succession, and institutional resilience.
A crisis at IndiGo pushed regulators and passengers to the brink. A power struggle at Tata Trusts revived uncomfortable memories of the past. An inheritance battle at Sona Comstar spilled into public view, magnified by a celebrity connection. And a Supreme Court reversal in the JSW Steel-Bhushan Power case ultimately rescued India’s insolvency framework.
For corporate India, 2025 was as much about stress-testing institutions as it was about deals and growth.
IndiGo: A governance stress test
The most unexpected turbulence came late in the year, when IndiGo — India’s largest airline — ran into an air pocket of its own making.
From widespread delays to mass flight cancellations, the carrier, which accounts for nearly 65 per cent of the country’s daily flights, threw India’s aviation network into disarray soon after a new pilot-rostering system kicked in under the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation norms from November 1.
What followed was a near-total operational meltdown. Stories ranged from a couple attending their own wedding reception virtually to a groom missing his wedding altogether, amid chaotic scenes at airports and mountains of delayed baggage. A low-cost airline that had built its brand on punctuality watched that reputation unravel in a matter of days.
The disruptions were “credit negative”, Moody’s said, citing significant lapses in planning, oversight, and resource management. The rating agency pointed out that the new regulations had been known to the industry for over a year, raising pointed questions about corporate governance at the airline.
As IndiGo faltered, the government stepped in with an unprecedented intervention. Aviation watchdog, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, constituted two specialised teams to internally monitor the airline’s daily operations. The government also mandated a cut of about 10 per cent in IndiGo’s daily capacity.
Fault lines at India’s largest business house
Even before IndiGo dominated headlines, corporate governance had sparked another high-stakes battle — this time within the Tata Group.
The flashpoint was the proposed reappointment of 77-year-old former defence secretary Vijay Singh as Tata Trusts’ nominee to the Tata Sons board. Four trustees — Mehli Mistry, Prameet Jhaveri, Darius Khambata, and Jehangir Jehangir — voted against the move, prompting Singh’s resignation.
A flurry of moves and countermoves followed, with the dispute crystallising into two camps: Mehli Mistry, a close associate of the late Ratan Tata and one of the executors of his estate, and Noel Tata, his successor.
The episode revived memories of 2016, when a very public feud culminated in the removal of Cyrus Mistry as Tata Sons chairman.
As the country’s largest conglomerate, which has pledged billions of dollars in investments across sectors, became embroiled in infighting, the government intervened. Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman met the group’s leadership, conveying a clear message on the need to restore stability.
The intervention was hardly surprising, said Binoy Parikh, partner at Katalyst Advisors, a mergers and acquisitions advisory firm. “We need to remember that Tata Trusts is a public trust. Its beneficiaries aren’t just a few individuals; in many ways, they are the people of India. Seen that way, it is effectively a national asset.”
Within months, the balance shifted decisively. Mehli Mistry was voted out of Tata Trusts, while Noel Tata’s 32-year-old son, Neville Tata, joined the Trusts’ board, moving into the foreground, and offering an early glimpse of the group’s long-term
succession roadmap.
A question of inheritance
Succession and inheritance battles are recurring themes in Indian boardrooms — proof of which was presented once again by the events that followed the untimely death of Sunjay Kapur, chairman of Sona Comstar.
The 53-year-old Kapur collapsed and died of a heart attack on June 12, 2025, while playing polo in Windsor, United Kingdom.
What followed was a legal dispute that laid bare questions of family legacy, control over an auto-components empire, and the division of a reportedly ₹30,000 crore estate. The contest involved Kapur’s wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur; his mother, Rani Kapur; and his two children, Samaira and Kiaan, from his previous marriage to actor Karisma Kapoor.
As is often the case, the dispute has turned on the question of wills. At the centre is a purported will dated March 21, which leaves all of Sunjay Kapur’s personal assets to Priya. The will has been contested by Karisma Kapoor’s children, with Rani Kapur also joining the petition, alleging that she had not been informed of any such document.
The matter is currently before the Delhi High Court.
“A will is often the lowest-hanging fruit,” Parikh said. “But when multiple family members are involved — some not active in the business but still beneficiaries — it calls for more structured ring-fencing, such as trusts or formal shareholder agreements.”
A test for India’s insolvency law
While the Sona Comstar dispute played out with all the trappings of high drama, a quieter legal battle in the Supreme Court carried far-reaching implications for India Inc.
On May 2, the apex court declared Sajjan Jindal-led JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) “illegal” and ordered the company’s liquidation — four years after JSW had acquired it under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The ruling, which made sharp observations against JSW Steel, the committee of creditors, and the resolution professional, sent shockwaves through the corporate sector. Many viewed it as a serious setback for the IBC, particularly given that JSW had successfully turned around BPSL and expanded its capacity.
Review petitions were filed by all parties. On September 26, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision, upholding JSW’s resolution plan and dismissing objections raised by former promoters and certain creditors.
Undoing the plan at this stage, the court said, would have “disastrous results”, given the scale of capital already infused by JSW.
Calling it a landmark ruling, JSW Steel Joint Managing Director and CEO Jayant Acharya said the judgment “preserved the integrity and sanctity of (the) IBC by upholding the finality of implemented resolution plans”.
The decision also cleared the path for a strategic transaction earlier this month, with Japan’s JFE Steel Corporation agreeing to acquire a 50 per cent stake in BPSL’s steel business for ₹15,750 crore.
Deals, demergers and listings
Beyond the drama, 2025 also unfolded as a year of intense deal-making.
It is widely seen as a blockbuster year for initial public offerings (IPOs), with mainboard listings (large, established companies going public) crossing 100 for the first time since 2007. Among the marquee names were Tata Capital, LG Electronics, Lenskart Solutions, Groww parent BillionBrains Garage Ventures, and ICICI Prudential Asset Management.
Demand for growth capital through IPOs remains strong, said Yatin Singh, chief executive officer–Investment Banking at Emkay Global, although returns were more muted. Average gains were around 3.5 per cent for issues below ₹500 crore and 17.5 per cent for larger offerings.
Singh also pointed to a rise in demergers, which extended the IPO theme. “Where growth capital is not needed, a demerger makes strategic sense,” he said.
Tata Motors completed the demerger of its passenger vehicle business (including Jaguar Land Rover) and commercial vehicles arm into two separately listed entities, while ITC Hotels made its market debut on January 29.
In mergers and acquisitions, Bloomberg data shows deal value in calendar 2025 at $107.2 billion, 2.29 per cent higher than calendar 2024, even as deal count dipped slightly (from 3,193 to 3,088).
As Indian companies chase scale and ambition, the events of 2025 offered a clear reminder: Governance frameworks will be tested as rigorously as balance sheets.
