Mehli Mistry Challenges Tata Trusts Trustee Exits, Questions Noel Tata's Eligibility

In three rejoinders filed before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, Mistry has contested submissions by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. The third responds to objections against his separate application seeking an inquiry into the administration of three Tata trusts.

The trusts have maintained that Mistry's three-year term ended on Oct. 28, 2025, and that his reappointment did not secure the unanimous approval required for him to continue. They have argued that the change reports merely record the cessation of his tenure and do not amount to his removal. They have also questioned his legal standing to challenge the decisions after ceasing to be a trustee.

Mistry disputes that interpretation, arguing that the original instruments governing the trusts do not prescribe a fixed three-year tenure. He contends that neither the 1913 Will nor the 1923 Trust Deed recognises the expiry of such a term as an automatic ground for a trustee to vacate office.

SDTT Dispute

In his challenge to SDTT's Change Report 677/2026, Mistry has questioned the validity of Circular Resolution 88, circulated on Oct. 23, 2025, which proposed his reappointment without a limit on tenure.

He alleges that Venu Srinivasan voted against his reappointment on Oct. 28, despite his own tenure having expired on Oct. 23. Mistry has pointed to a footnote in the trust's submission that reportedly acknowledges Srinivasan was not entitled to vote.

His objection extends beyond the validity of Srinivasan's individual vote. Mistry argues that his participation in the decision-making process invalidated the resolution from the outset. He has also sought details of decisions in which Srinivasan participated between the expiry of his tenure and the subsequent reporting of his cessation.

The dispute also concerns an Oct. 17, 2024 resolution on the reappointment of existing trustees. Mistry says it provided for trustees whose terms had expired to be reappointed without a tenure limit, an arrangement he alleges was extended to others but not to him.

The trust, however, maintains that Mistry's appointment was for three years and that his continuation required unanimous approval, which was not obtained. The Charity Commissioner's examination will involve competing interpretations of the original trust documents, the 2024 resolution and the voting process followed in October 2025.

Noel Tata's Eligibility

Mistry has raised a separate challenge to Change Report 678/2026 concerning the Bai Hirabai institution. He has questioned Circular Resolution 671, also dated Oct. 23, 2025, and the participation of Noel Tata, Srinivasan and Vijay Singh in the decision on his reappointment.

His objection to Noel Tata centres on Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed dated Dec. 7, 1923. According to Mistry, the provisions require trustees to practise the Zoroastrian faith and be permanent residents of specified areas of the former Bombay Presidency or Navsari.

He has sought an affidavit from Noel Tata addressing his eligibility, raising questions about his Irish citizenship, UAE residency and Golden Visa status, as well as compliance with the religious and residency conditions. These objections remain allegations and have not been adjudicated by the Charity Commissioner.

The trust has argued that the eligibility provisions are void and beyond the authority of the original Will and Codicil. It has relied on a March 2000 legal opinion by former Chief Justice of India M.H. Kania to support its position.

Mistry disputes this interpretation, arguing that the Codicil authorised trustees to frame the deed and that its eligibility conditions remain binding. He has also cited the trust's decision in April 2026 to seek changes to these provisions, saying the move itself indicates that the existing clauses have legal significance.

He has questioned Vijay Singh's eligibility to participate in the decision, including issues concerning his tenure and residence, as well as the basis on which the change report was verified.

Governance Inquiry

Beyond the two change reports, Mistry is seeking a separate inquiry into the administration of SDTT, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and the Bai Hirabai institution through Miscellaneous Application 714/2026, filed in June.

The application seeks scrutiny of commissions and other financial benefits received by trustees through positions on Tata group company boards, declarations of interest, related-party matters and alleged departures from trust resolutions.

Among the transactions flagged is an annual commission of about Rs 1.42 crore that Noel Tata received from Tata Sons in FY25. Mistry has also raised questions about the engagement of Gerry McGovern for Norton Motorcycles, an equity infusion into Tata International and alleged departures from resolutions passed on July 28, 2025.

The underlying concern, according to Mistry, is whether trustees nominated to company boards can adequately discharge their fiduciary responsibilities to charitable trusts while also serving the interests of group companies. He has sought access to declarations of interest, board papers, circular resolutions and payment records.

Mistry was an SDTT trustee until Oct. 28, 2025, covering most of the period to which his allegations relate. He has said he raised the concerns at board meetings and holds documentary records to support them. He was also a trustee of Tata Education and Development Trust and Tata Medical Centre when the application was filed.

He has sought examination of the relevant records and approvals, along with appropriate action, including recovery of amounts allegedly wrongfully retained. His application invokes provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act governing the supervision and regulation of public trusts.

The trusts have opposed attempts to expand the change-report proceedings into a wider examination of their administration. Mistry maintains that the governance application seeks relief distinct from the recording of changes in trusteeship and should be considered separately.