Two major Tata trusts, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution (BHJTNCI), have formally petitioned the deputy charity commissioner of Mumbai to dismiss objections filed by former trustee Mehli Mistry. The trusts contend that because Mistry is no longer a trustee, he does not qualify as a person with a vested interest in the organization and therefore possesses no legal grounds to contest the recording of his exit from their boards.
The dispute stems from the expiration of Mistry’s three-year term, which commenced on October 29, 2022. Following the conclusion of his tenure, a resolution to reappoint him as a lifetime trustee was presented in October 2025. However, the proposal failed to secure the unanimous support required under local regulations, with both Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata and trustee Vijay Singh opposing his continuation in the role.
In their submissions, the trusts addressed allegations of procedural irregularities, specifically denying claims that the October 2025 voting process was invalid. The SDTT maintained that even if the reappointment resolution were deemed void, it would not result in Mistry’s automatic reinstatement, as his original term had already elapsed. The trust further referenced Section 30A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (MPT) Act, as amended in 2025, which mandates unanimous approval from surviving trustees for reappointments and imposes a five-year cap on such roles.
The legal proceedings have also touched upon the composition of the board and the eligibility criteria for trustees. The BHJTNCI has filed an application to replace its current reporting trustee, Vijay Singh, with Noel Tata. This move has been contested by Mistry’s counsel, who argued that any substitute must adhere to specific conditions outlined in the original 1923 trust deed. According to Mistry’s representatives, clauses within the deed require a trustee to be a practicing Zoroastrian of the Parsi faith, and they requested that Noel Tata provide an affidavit affirming his qualifications.
In response to these claims, the trust asserted that such religious restrictions were not present in the original instruments and were later additions. Furthermore, the BHJTNCI stated that the appointment of non-Parsi trustees has been an established and accepted practice for over 25 years. The trusts categorically denied all allegations of illegal activities, unauthorized board changes, or breaches of fiduciary duties.
The SDTT pointed to recent filings to clarify its board status, noting that a report regarding a trustee appointment was accepted by the deputy charity commissioner on July 1, 2025. Additionally, the trust reported the cessation of Venu Srinivasan’s trusteeship and his subsequent reappointment to a three-year term in January 2026. The trust argued that the current regulatory proceedings should remain narrowly focused on determining whether Mistry’s trusteeship ceased upon the expiry of his term, rather than expanding into broader inquiries regarding board conduct.
Meanwhile, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) has sought an adjournment in the matter, citing a May 15 order from the charity commissioner that restricts it from making decisions while an inquiry is pending. The regulatory proceedings for all related matters are scheduled to resume on November 5, where the commissioner will continue to weigh the arguments presented by both the trusts and Mistry’s legal counsel.
Comments