The Tata Trusts Mehli Mistry trustee dispute intensified on Thursday after Tata Trusts challenged the former trustee’s legal standing to contest changes in the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust.
During proceedings before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, lawyers representing the trusts argued that Mistry could not challenge the changes after his trustee term expired. They also rejected his allegations of misgovernance and mismanagement.
The trusts raised a preliminary objection, arguing that only a serving trustee or a beneficiary could challenge a statutory change report. According to their submissions, Mistry did not qualify under either category when he filed his objections.
Tata Trusts disputes Mehli Mistry’s eligibility to object
Tata Trusts told the authority that Mistry’s three-year term as a trustee of Sir Ratan Tata Trust ended on October 28, 2025.
The trusts argued that his reappointment did not take place because the trust deed requires unanimous approval from trustees, which was not secured.
They maintained that Mistry was not removed from the board but had completed his fixed-term tenure. The change report filed with the authorities, they said, merely reflected an alteration in the trust’s composition.
Charitable trusts are required to file change reports when their trusteeship changes, including following the expiry of a term, resignation, removal or appointment.
Mistry’s legal team sought additional time to respond to the submissions made by Tata Trusts.
Noel Tata appointment adds to governance dispute
The proceedings come amid a wider dispute over governance at Tata’s philanthropic institutions.
A separate matter concerns the proposed appointment of Noel Tata as the reporting trustee of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
Mistry has opposed the proposal, arguing that the appointment must comply with Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed dated December 7, 1923. He contends that the clauses require trustees to be practising Zoroastrians from the Parsi community.
He has asked the Charity Commissioner to direct Noel Tata to file an affidavit confirming that he meets the eligibility requirements.
Sir Ratan Tata Trust seeks adjournment
Thursday’s hearing also involved a request by SRTT for more time to respond to Mistry’s separate complaint against the trust.
SRTT cited orders issued by the Charity Commissioner on May 15 and May 18, 2026, under Section 36A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. The orders arose from complaints filed by Katyayani Agrawal and Venu Srinivasan.
According to the trust, the orders restrained it from holding meetings until an inspector’s inquiry report was submitted. SRTT argued that the restrictions remained in force and sought an adjournment until the pending complaints were decided.
Mistry’s lawyers opposed the request, alleging that the trust was delaying the proceedings. They said SRTT had previously sought an adjournment on September 8, citing the need for trustee substitution, and was now relying on the May orders.
They also argued that filing a reply to objections would not involve any decision on the trust’s administration, management or composition and could therefore proceed despite the restrictions.
SRTT’s counsel rejected Mistry’s account, describing it as factually inaccurate and stating that the trust would submit its response.
The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner has scheduled the next hearing for November 5. The proceedings will continue to examine the objections and competing submissions concerning trustee appointments and governance at Tata’s charitable institutions.
