In a detailed objection filed under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, which was reviewed by Moneycontrol, Mistry has sought scrutiny of trustee appointments and certain decisions taken by the trust following the death of Ratan Tata.
The filing, dated June 4, argues that trustees of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust passed a unanimous resolution on October 17, 2024, aimed at ensuring continuity in governance by supporting the reappointment of existing trustees. Mistry alleged that the understanding was subsequently not honoured in his case, resulting in the non-renewal of his tenure.
According to the petition, the decision was arbitrary and inconsistent with the spirit of the resolution adopted after Ratan Tata’s death to preserve stability and continuity within the trusts.
Also Read: Spectrum relief won’t change telecom pecking order: Axis Capital
The filing goes beyond the issue of trustee appointments and raises broader concerns regarding governance practices at Tata Trusts. Mistry has alleged that certain trustees benefited from financial arrangements involving Tata group companies while serving as trustees and nominee directors.
Among the issues highlighted in the petition are payments and commissions allegedly received by trustee Venu Srinivasan from Tata group entities over several years. The filing cites remuneration received from Tata Sons, Tata Advanced Systems, Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures and Tata Sikorsky Aerospace. According to the petition, the aggregate amount exceeded Rs 20 crore over the years. Mistry has argued that such arrangements warrant closer examination from a fiduciary and governance perspective.
The petition further alleges that trustees are obligated to act solely in the interests of the charitable trusts and that any perceived conflicts of interest should be subjected to independent scrutiny. It contends that monies earned by trustees while serving as nominees of charitable trusts on Tata company boards should have been examined from a conflict-of-interest standpoint.
Mistry has also referred to governance issues relating to Tata Sons. The filing alleges that certain decisions affecting entities closely linked to the trusts were taken without adequate consultation and transparency.
One notable aspect of the petition is its reference to a unanimous resolution passed by the trusts in July 2025 supporting an extension of Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran’s tenure. According to the filing, subsequent actions by some trustees were inconsistent with that position and reflected a departure from previously agreed decisions.
The petition also refers to another resolution under which the trusts had resolved to preserve Tata Sons’ status as an unlisted company and explore options for providing an exit route to minority shareholder Shapoorji Pallonji Group without pursuing a public listing. Mistry has alleged that certain trustees later publicly advocated positions contrary to that resolution.
Based on the allegations outlined in the filing, Mistry sought intervention from the Charity Commissioner, including scrutiny of trustee conduct, examination of alleged conflicts of interest and governance practices, and consideration of corrective measures to safeguard the administration of the trust.
The filing also seeks the appointment of an independent administrator to oversee the trust’s affairs until governance concerns are addressed.
The allegations contained in the petition represent claims made by Mistry before the Charity Commissioner and have not been adjudicated. Responses from Tata Trusts and the trustees named in the filing could not immediately be obtained.
