Mumbai — Tata Trusts has questioned former trustee Mehli Mistry’s legal authority to challenge changes to the boards of two major charitable trusts, arguing before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner that his term had expired and he was no longer eligible to object.
During a hearing Thursday, attorneys representing the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust rejected Mistry’s allegations of mismanagement and improper governance. They argued that he lacked the legal standing to challenge official reports documenting changes in the trusts’ leadership.
According to Tata Trusts, only current trustees or beneficiaries are entitled to object to such reports. Its attorneys maintained that Mistry belonged to neither category when he filed his objections.
The trusts said Mistry’s three-year term as a trustee of SRTT ended on October 28, 2025. His reappointment did not proceed because the trust deed requires unanimous approval from trustees, which was not obtained.
Attorneys emphasized that Mistry had not been removed from his position but had simply completed his designated term. They described the disputed filing as a routine statutory report required whenever a charitable trust experiences changes in its board membership.
Under Maharashtra’s public trust regulations, organizations must report changes in trusteeship resulting from appointments, resignations, removals or the expiration of terms.
Mistry’s attorneys requested additional time to respond to the trusts’ arguments.
The dispute is part of a wider disagreement over governance at Tata’s charitable institutions, including a separate challenge involving the proposed appointment of Noel Tata as reporting trustee of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
Mistry has opposed that appointment, arguing that it must comply with provisions of a trust deed dated December 7, 1923. He maintains that Clauses 6 and 18 require trustees to be practicing Zoroastrians belonging to the Parsi community.
He has asked the Charity Commissioner to require Noel Tata to submit an affidavit confirming that he meets those eligibility requirements.
Thursday’s proceedings also addressed a request by SRTT for additional time to respond to a separate complaint filed by Mistry.
The trust cited orders issued by the Charity Commissioner on May 15 and May 18, 2026, under Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Those orders, issued in connection with complaints filed by Katyayani Agrawal and Venu Srinivasan, restricted the trust from holding meetings until an inspector submitted an inquiry report.
SRTT argued that the restrictions remain in effect and requested that proceedings be postponed until the pending complaints are resolved.
Mistry’s attorneys opposed the postponement, accusing the trust of attempting to prolong the dispute.
They pointed out that SRTT had previously requested an adjournment on September 8 because of the need to substitute trustees but was now citing the earlier restrictions as grounds for another delay.
Mistry’s legal team also argued that submitting a written response to objections would not constitute a decision involving the trust’s administration, management or board composition. Therefore, they maintained, the trust could respond without violating the existing orders.
Attorneys representing SRTT disputed Mistry’s account, saying it contained factual inaccuracies and that the trust would submit its response to the commissioner.
The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner scheduled the next hearing for November 5, as the legal dispute over trustee appointments and governance at Tata’s charitable institutions remains unresolved. (Source: IANS)
