Mumbai, Oct 15 — Tata Trusts has challenged the legal standing of former trustee Mehli Mistry to contest changes in the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust, arguing before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner that he cannot object to trustee changes after the expiry of his term.
During proceedings on Thursday, lawyers representing the trusts denied allegations of misgovernance and mismanagement made by Mistry and first raised a preliminary objection regarding his eligibility to challenge the change reports.
According to the trusts, only a serving trustee or a beneficiary has the right to object to a change report, and Mistry did not fall into either category when he filed his objections.
The trusts submitted that Mistry's three-year term as a trustee of Sir Ratan Tata Trust expired on October 28, 2025. They argued that his reappointment did not materialise because the trust deed requires unanimous approval from trustees, which was not achieved.
The trusts maintained that Mistry was not removed from the board but simply completed a fixed-term tenure, and the filing before authorities was a statutory change report reflecting an alteration in the trust's composition.
Under trust laws, charitable trusts are required to file change reports whenever there is a change in trusteeship, whether through the expiry of a term, removal, resignation or appointment of trustees.
Mistry's legal team sought additional time to respond to the submissions made by Tata Trusts.
The dispute over his standing comes amid a broader contest over the governance of 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, contending that the appointment must comply with Clauses 6 and 18 of the trust deed dated December 7, 1923, which require trustees to be practising Zoroastrians from the Parsi community.
He has requested the Charity Commissioner to direct Noel Tata to file an affidavit confirming that he satisfies the eligibility conditions laid down in the trust deed.
Thursday's hearing also witnessed arguments over a request by Sir Ratan Tata Trust 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 in 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 and continue to remain in force. On that basis, the trust sought an adjournment until the pending complaints are finally decided.
Mistry's lawyers opposed the request, alleging that the trust was attempting to delay the proceedings. They argued that SRTT had previously sought an adjournment on September 8 citing the need for trustee substitution, but was now relying on the May orders. They further contended that filing a reply to objections would not amount to taking any decision relating to the trust's administration, management or composition and therefore could proceed despite the restrictions imposed by the earlier orders.
Counsel appearing for SRTT rejected Mistry's version of events, stating that it contained factual inaccuracies and that the trust would place its response on record.
The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for November 5 as the dispute over trustee appointments and governance at Tata's charitable institutions continues to unfold.