Tata Trusts has questioned Mehli Mistry’s legal standing to oppose changes in the trustee structure of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust, telling the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner that his term had already ended when he filed the objections.
The trust has rejected Mistry’s allegations of misgovernance and mismanagement. Its lawyers argued that objections to a change report can be raised only by a serving trustee or a beneficiary. Since Mistry was neither when he submitted his objections, the trust said he was not entitled to challenge the filing.
Mistry’s three-year tenure at Sir Ratan Tata Trust ended on October 28, 2025. His reappointment could not be completed because the trust deed requires unanimity among trustees, which was not secured, according to the trust’s submissions.
Tata Trusts maintained that the matter involved the expiry of a fixed term rather than the removal of a trustee. It described the change report as a statutory filing recording the alteration in the trust’s composition. Under trusteeship law, such a report is required when a trustee’s term ends, a trustee is removed or a new trustee is appointed.
Mistry’s lawyers sought additional time to respond to the submissions on his eligibility to challenge the trustee changes.
Dispute over Noel Tata’s proposed appointment
The proceedings are also linked to a separate dispute concerning the proposed appointment of Noel Tata as reporting trustee of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
The application seeks to replace Vijay Singh, whose term ended on August 14, 2026. Mistry has opposed the proposal, contending that the appointment must comply with Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed dated December 7, 1923.
Those clauses require trustees to be practising Zoroastrians belonging to the Parsi community. Mistry has asked the Charity Commissioner to direct Noel Tata to submit an affidavit confirming that he satisfies the eligibility requirements.
Arguments over adjournment request
Thursday’s hearing also covered a request by Sir Ratan Tata Trust for more time to respond to Mistry’s separate complaint against the trust. The trust referred to orders issued by the Charity Commissioner on May 15 and May 18, 2026, under Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act in complaints filed by Katyayani Agrawal and Venu Srinivasan.
The orders directed that no meeting of the trust be held until an inspector’s inquiry report was submitted. Sir Ratan Tata Trust said the directions continued to remain in force and sought an adjournment until the complaints were finally decided.
Mistry’s lawyers opposed the request, alleging that the trust was delaying the proceedings. They said the trust had previously sought an adjournment on September 8, citing the need for trustee substitution, but was now relying on the May orders as the basis for seeking more time.
They further argued that submitting a reply to the objections would not itself determine the trust’s administration, management or composition and could therefore proceed despite the May 15 and May 18 directions.
Lawyers for Sir Ratan Tata Trust disputed Mistry’s account, saying it contained factual inaccuracies and that they would respond to the allegations. The next hearing has been scheduled for November 5.
Follow us
