The internal rift within the Tata Trusts has sharpened, with former trustee Mehli Mistry approaching the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner seeking the appointment of an administrator to run the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), while simultaneously flagging a series of governance lapses, disputed board decisions and alleged conflicts of interest.
The latest filing follows Mistry’s earlier challenge to trustee appointments at Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
Mistry questions board’s legal validity
In his petition, Mistry has challenged the validity of the current board, arguing that certain trustees may be ineligible under the trust deed, including on grounds such as religious background and residency. He has contended that decisions taken by such a board — including those relating to governance and trustee appointments — are legally questionable.
SDTT is the single largest shareholder in Tata Sons with 28% stake, followed by Sir Ratan Tata Trusts (24%). The other trusts holds another 14% together.
The plea for an administrator effectively seeks regulatory intervention to oversee the functioning of one of the principal trusts within the Tata philanthropic structure until governance concerns are resolved.
The SDTT, along with the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, together holds about 66% in Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group, making the dispute significant for the wider conglomerate.
In a fresh objection before the Charity Commissioner, Mistry has broadened his challenge to include decision-making processes and trustee reappointments within SDTT.
At the centre of the dispute is an October 2024 resolution that, according to Mistry, mandated uniform renewal of trustees’ terms to ensure continuity. He has alleged that despite this unanimous resolution, his own term was not renewed, calling the move “arbitrary and discriminatory.”
The objection names Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata, vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan and trustee Vijay Singh in this context.
Mistry has also questioned the validity of circular resolutions passed in 2025, including the appointment of Noel Tata as a lifetime trustee, arguing that such decisions were based on board changes that were not duly reported to or approved by the Charity Commissioner.
Filing flags trust law compliance issues
The filing, which has been reviewed by FE, raises issues regarding compliance with the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, particularly after recent amendments governing trustee tenure. Mistry has argued that certain reappointments — especially those in perpetuity — may violate statutory limits, including the cap that restricts lifetime trustees to 25% of board strength.
He has further alleged procedural irregularities, including claims that Srinivasan was ineligible to vote on a key resolution.
Beyond procedural issues, the objection flags potential conflicts of interest, alleging that some trustees received commissions from Tata Sons and other group companies in their capacity as nominee directors. It also raises concerns over the alleged use of organisational resources for personal purposes.
Mistry has alleged that certain trustees, including Vijay Singh, received commissions or remuneration from Tata Sons and other Tata group companies while serving as nominee directors. The filing states that such payments were received by virtue of their position and raises questions over whether these were in line with the fiduciary duties expected of trustees of a public charitable trust.
“It is submitted that between the financial years 2013–14 and 2024–25, Applicant No. 4 (Vijay Singh) earned an amount aggregating to approximately INR 15.89 crores from Tata Sons, primarily by way of commissions, with his annual remuneration progressively increasing to INR 44 Lakh in 2021–22, INR 3 crore in 2023–24 and INR 3.2 crore in 2024–25,” the filing said.
The filing described this as a “deeply concerning” development and argued that the governance of the Trust has been “seriously compromised on account of the alleged illegal acts of certain Trustees.”
Mistry’s latest move follows an earlier challenge relating to trustee appointments at another Tata-linked institution and reflects deepening factional tensions within the Tata Trusts.
By seeking the appointment of an administrator and questioning board legitimacy, the petition brings governance standards at the apex philanthropic bodies of the Tata Group under regulatory scrutiny, with potential implications for the control structure of one of India’s largest business conglomerates.
Mistry has further alleged procedural irregularities, including claims that Srinivasan was ineligible to vote on a key resolution.