Mehli Mistry, a close associate of late tycoon Ratan Tata, has challenged his ouster from Sir Dorabji Tata Trusts (SDTT), the largest among Tata Trusts, and requested the appointment of an administrator to run the philanthropic entities behind the sprawling Tata Group of companies.
In an affidavit filed before the Maharashtra charity commissioner on Wednesday, Mistry challenged the votes cast by Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh that led to his ouster in October; questioned Tata Trusts chair Noel Tata's objection to reappointing N. Chandrasekaran as chair of Tata Sons; and highlighted what he claims is a procedural flaw in the appointment of Noel as the Trusts chair.
Chandra matter
On 24 February, the Tata Sons board deferred a decision on reappointing Chandrasekaran, after Noel sought a roadmap to revive loss-making Tata businesses. Mistry questioned this, stating Tata Trusts had already decided to grant Chandrasekaran a third term.
"This constitutes yet another instance where a unanimous resolution, once duly passed, has not been adhered to in its true letter and spirit, wherein the trustees who were part of the decision-making process and had expressly consented to the resolution subsequently chose to act contrary to the resolution,” said the affidavit, a copy of which was seen by Mint.
Mistry’s latest objection follows his previous complaint that Srinivasan and Singh could not serve as trustees of a Tata Trusts affiliate because they were not Parsis. Subsequently, Srinivasan quit Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. Later, Singh and Srinivasan accused Tata Trusts CEO Siddharth Sharma of acting unfairly in asking them to consider resigning voluntarily.
Queries emailed to Noel, Singh, Srinivasan and Tata Trusts went unanswered.
Mistry, who was ousted from SDTT and Sir Ratan Tata Trusts (SRTT) on 23 October after Noel, Srinivasan and Singh rejected his candidature, claims that the votes of the chairman (Noel) and one of the vice-chairmen should not have been considered on his reappointment at SDTT. Pramit Jhaveri, who left after his trusteeship ended in February, and Darius Khambata had approved Mistry’s candidature. Ratan Tata’s brother Jimmy Tata was absent.
Procedural flaw
Mistry also pointed out that Tata Trusts had not informed the charity commissioner Noel Tata's "alleged re-appointment" as a permanent trustee on 27 January 2025.
“This constituted a reportable change under Section 22 of the MPT Act (Maharashtra Public Trust). No Change Report was filed within the prescribed time, and no approval of the renewal of the appointment has been obtained from this learned commissioner,” said the affidavit. “The failure to report the change rendered the reappointment illegal and invalid on the expiry of the prescribed time. The failure to report the change rendered the reappointment illegal and invalid on the expiry of the prescribed time. Consequently, the composition of the Board of Trustees would also be impacted.”
On 17 October, 2024, Tata Trusts had unanimously resolved that trustees would be made permanent when their terms expire, ending the practice of appointing them for fixed terms.
“One of the unwritten purposes of this Resolution was to ensure that Trustees could act without fear that their bona fide actions would not impact the renewal of their term as Trustee,” the affidavit said.
Srinivasan, Singh
Mistry also argued that Srinivasan was ineligible to vote on his (Mistry's) re-appointment. Citing the MPT Act, he said the maximum number of perpetual trustees in the Tata Trusts cannot exceed a fourth of the total number of trustees. He said when Noel was re-appointed perpetual trustee in SDTT on 27 January 2025, that ceiling was hit; and hence, Srinivasan could not have been appointed a perpetual trustee later on 18 October, 2025.
Mistry also disputed Singh’s continuance as a trustee, stating he received over ₹20.12 crore in remuneration from Tata companies between 2013 and 2025, calling it grounds for conflict of interest.
“A Trustee is bound by strict fiduciary duties to act solely in the best interests of the Trust and to avoid any conflict of interest. The receipt of substantial financial benefits by a Trustee from entities connected with the Trusts is prima facie inconsistent with such obligations,” said the affidavit.
Administrator
Mistry's filing argues that the SDTT board has engaged in a pattern of misconduct serious enough to warrant an appointment for an administrator. The violations he catalogues include acting through an illegally composed board, repeatedly breaching the new trustee tenure law, selectively applying resolutions that suited individual trustees while discarding ones that did not, counting votes from a person who had already ceased to be a trustee, and allowing at least one trustee to personally accept commissions from Tata group entities.
Mistry stated that when the commission payments to Vijay Singh were flagged as a concern, the Trust sought cover by obtaining a legal opinion from a senior Bombay High Court advocate, which reportedly concluded that the payments were lawful. Mistry dismisses this as a self-serving exercise, pointing out that a private legal opinion is advisory in nature, and carries no binding force.