A simmering boardroom conflict within the Tata Trusts has flared into a legal tussle, with businessman Mehli Mistry reportedly filing a caveat before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner to challenge his recent removal as a trustee.
Mistry, a long-time associate of Ratan Tata, has asked that his side be heard before the Trusts’ decision to oust him is approved, according to multiple media reports. On Friday, Mistry lodged a caveat against his removal from three of the most influential philanthropic bodies in India: the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Navsari Charitable Institution, The Times of India reported, citing an executive aware of the matter.
The caveat, a legal safeguard mechanism, ensures that Mistry must be notified and heard before any final decision is made on his trusteeship, reported Moneycontrol.
Explaining the legal significance, senior Supreme Court advocate H P Ranina told TOI that a caveat acts as a “safety net,” compelling the regulatory authority to consider the petitioner’s submissions before passing an order.
In Mistry’s case, it prevents the Charity Commissioner from confirming his removal without first evaluating his defence.
Under the governing regulations, any change in trusteeship at Tata Trusts requires approval from the Charity Commissioner. The Trusts, which collectively own 65.9 per cent of Tata Sons, the $300-billion holding company of the Tata Group, must submit their resolutions for regulatory clearance before implementing them.
Once the removal proposal is filed, both Mistry and the Trusts are expected to present their arguments before the commissioner, according to Business Standard.
Inside the Tata Trusts Power Play
The controversy erupted during the process of reappointing trustees. According to Economic Times, trustees at the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust were asked on October 23 to approve Mistry’s continuation as a permanent member.
His three-year term, which began in October 2022, was set to expire on October 28, 2025. However, while trustees Pramit Jhaveri, Darius Khambata, and Jehangir Jehangir backed his reappointment, vice chairmen Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, along with Noel Tata, opposed it.
Ratan Tata’s brother, Jimmy Tata, abstained. The absence of unanimous support meant Mistry’s reappointment was not confirmed, leading to his removal.
Ranina further told TOI that Mistry’s legal challenge may hinge on a prior resolution dated October 17, 2024, when all trustees had agreed that they would be reappointed as permanent members upon expiry of their existing terms. Mistry is expected to argue that this earlier understanding holds legal weight and should override the later decision.
Potential Ripple Effects for Tata Group Governance
The battle for control at Tata Trusts is more than a personal setback; it could have sweeping implications for the governance of Tata Sons itself. Under the company’s articles of association, key decisions such as board appointments and investments exceeding Rs 100 crore require prior consent from Tata Trusts. A prolonged dispute at the top could therefore delay or complicate major corporate moves across the conglomerate.
If the matter remains unresolved, Mint reported, the standoff could evolve into a lengthy legal battle, testing the strength of internal governance frameworks that have historically guided the Tata Group’s functioning. It would also mark another flashpoint in the long and often discreet power dynamics surrounding one of India’s most respected philanthropic and business empires.
