Tata Trusts gets time till Oct 15 to respond to objections raised by Mehli Mistry

Tata Trusts has been given time until October 15 to present its arguments against objections raised by former trustee Mehli Mistry. The objections relate to change reports recording his exit from three Tata trusts, alleged governance lapses, and the eligibility of certain trustees of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.

The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner adjourned the matter on September 8 and granted the Trusts additional time to respond, as per a report in The Indian Express.

MUST READ | Tata Sons chairman race heats up: T V Narendran, Saurabh Agrawal, NSE's Ashish Chauhan in contention

The adjournment followed a request from Tata Trusts' lawyers for more time to file their rejoinder, citing factors including the exit of Vijay Singh from the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. Sources told the daily that Mistry's lawyer opposed the request. Mistry is not seeking reinstatement as a trustee but has challenged the legality of his removal and raised governance concerns before the regulator, the report said.

The proceedings stem from Mistry's challenge to change reports concerning his cessation as a trustee of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. Change reports are filed with the Charity Commissioner to record changes in the composition and particulars of public charitable trusts. Lawyers said Singh's departure has created an additional procedural issue that the Trusts must address in their response. Singh did not seek reappointment after his term ended on August 14.

Mistry resigned as a trustee of the three trusts last October after the boards voted not to renew his appointments. A long-time Tata group insider and close associate of the late Ratan Tata, his exit has led to a wider dispute over governance, potential conflicts of interest, and trustee appointments at some Tata trusts. Tata Trusts has contested the allegations, which have not yet been adjudicated by the Charity Commissioner.

DON'T MISS | Tata share transfer case: Inquiry closed, Charity Commissioner finds sale followed due process

In filings submitted in June, Mistry questioned trustee appointments, board decisions, remuneration arrangements, and governance practices across the Tata Trusts network. Besides challenging his removal from SRTT, he raised concerns about decision-making within the institution. A key issue in his case is the fiduciary duties of trustees and whether remuneration and benefits received from Tata group companies align with these duties.

Mistry argued that compensation earned by trustees as nominees of charitable trusts should accrue to the trusts rather than individual trustees. He also claimed that the trustees of SRTT and the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust had unanimously passed a resolution on October 17, 2024, to renew existing trustees' tenure for continuity after Ratan Tata's death, but some trustees later voted against renewing his term.

His objections include allegations of governance lapses and potential conflicts of interest involving trustees such as Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata, Vijay Singh, and Venu Srinivasan. Issues raised include alleged non-disclosures of income from other Tata group companies and possible conflicts involving Srinivasan, who is also chairman emeritus of TVS Motor Company. Mistry also cited the engagement of Gerry McGovern, then a senior Jaguar Land Rover executive, as a consultant for Norton Motorcycles, part of the TVS group, questioning if Srinivasan's roles created conflicts. These are allegations made by Mistry and not findings of the Charity Commissioner.

MUST READ | Tata Sons chairman succession delayed as Sir Ratan Tata Trust seeks approval to join search panel: Report

Mistry has separately challenged the eligibility of trustees at the Bai Hirabai trust, questioning the appointments of Srinivasan and Singh. He cited the trust's 1923 deed restricting eligibility to Parsi Zoroastrians residing in the erstwhile Bombay Presidency and alleged their appointments were invalid. Tata Trusts disputed this, stating non-Zoroastrians have served on the trust since 2000 based on legal advice from a former Chief Justice of India, while acknowledging the original deed's restrictions.