Mehli Mistry has formally objected to the trusteeship of five individuals in the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, alleging illegalities like trustees receiving financial benefits and using company resources for personal work, which he claims led to his ouster.
New Delhi [India], April 15 (ANI): After challenging the eligibility of Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh among others as trustees in one of the several Tata Trusts that collectively own 66% of Tata Sons, on the ground of the duo being non-Parsis, Mehli Mistry has now formally objected to the trusteeship of five trustees including Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh in the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT).
Key Allegations Against Trustees
Among several illegalities flagged by Mistry in this fresh objection filed with the Maharashtra Charitable Commissioner, the key allegation — which also explains why he (Mistry) was allegedly wrongfully ousted from the Tata Trusts — is that Vijay Singh(a trustee to several Tata Trusts) among other Trustees received substantial financial benefits in the form of commissions and remuneration from multiple Tata Group entities during his tenure as a nominee director and Venu Srinivasan (a trustee and the Vice Chairman to several Tata Trusts) in alleged breach of his fiduciary duties, as a Trustee and Nominated Director used other Tata employees to carry out personal work. Mistry, in his fresh objection-application, reiterates that his aim is only to expose the alleged illegal functioning of the Trust, including mismanagement and maladministration and is not intended to seek his reinstatement to the said Trust.
Financial Benefits to Vijay Singh
As regards the allegation over receiving commissions by Vijay Singh among other Trustees, Mehlis’ objection states, “The Applicant/Objector (Mistry) respectfully submits that, in a deeply concerning tum of events, the governance of the Tata Trusts has been seriously compromised on account or the alleged illegal acts of certain Trustees. It is submitted that Applicant No. 4, (Vijay Singh) and others have been receiving commissions from Tata Sons and other Tata group companies as Nominee Directors of Tata Trusts on the Tata Sons Board. The Applicant/Objector further submits that the Applicant No. 4, by virtue of his position as a Nominee Trustee in Tata Sons, came to be appointed as a director on the boards of several Tata companies. It is submitted that between the financial years 2013-14 and 2024-25, Applicant No. 4 carned 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 Lakhs in 2021-22, INR. 3 crores in 2023-24 and INR. 3.2 crore in 2024-25.”
“The Applicant/Objector further submits that, apart from Tata Sons, it is alleged that the Applicant No. 4 is also reported to have received remuneration from Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd and Tata Sikorsky Aerospace Ltd during the period of his association with these companies. His total earnings from Tata Advanced Systems Ltd are stated to be INR. 3.52 crore, comprising commissions and other payments between 2018-19 and 2023-24. It is further reported that payments amounting to INR. 31 lakhs and INR. 41 lakhs were received from Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd respectively, during the same period,” the objection states.
Alleged Conflict of Interest by Venu Srinivasan
As regards the allegations against Srinivasan, Mistry’s objection states, “Reportedly, the TVS Chairman, Applicant No. 3 (Srinivasan) and his son, engaged Mr Gerry McGovern, then COO of Jaguar Land Rover Brand & Luxury, as a consultant for Norton motorcycles, a subsidiary of TVS Holdings. This apparent act in conflict of his interests as being a Director of Tata sons, the holding company of JLR, and in breach of his fiduciary duties, as a Trustee & Nominated Director, must be assessed by this Hon’ble Commissioner, and directed for disclosure as to if any payment has been made to JLR for utilising the said services or JLR.”
Mistry Links Ouster to Whistleblowing
Mistry states that upon discovering these practices, alleged commissions received by Singh and the use of Tata employees for personal work by Srinivasan, he raised the issue before the other Board of Trustees. He claims that his insistence on putting an end to these practices, which he believed were causing financial detriment to the Trust, led to the other Board of Trustees refusing to renew his term as trustee. “Upon learning of the commission being pocketed by Applicant No. 4 (Vijay Singh) and the use of a Tata employee by Applicant No. 3 (Venu Srinivasan) for carrying out personal work, the Applicant/Objector (Mistry) drew the attention of the other Trustees at a meeting of the Board of Trustees. The Applicant/Objector verily believes that since he insisted that this practice be stopped, since the Trust was being deprived of the funds, Applicant Nos. 2 (Noel Tata), 3 and 4 maliciously declined to renew his term. This demonstrates the inherent malafides in the actions or the Applicant Nos. 2, 3, and 4, as well as their anxiety in keeping the wrongdoing under wraps,” the fresh objection-application reads.
Dispute Over Reappointment Resolution
To recall, the row within Tata Trusts began in November last year, when Mistry, after being voted against by the Board of Trustees — despite an October 2024 resolution to renew his trusteeship for a lifetime — harmoniously exited from the trusts, citing his commitment to his late friend and former Tata conglomerate supremo Ratan N. Tata. Mistry, in his fresh objection, states that after the death of Ratan Tata, the trustees of SDTT (Sir Dorabji Tata Trust) and SRTT (Sir Ratan Tata Trust) passed a unanimous resolution on 17 October 2024. They agreed to reappoint each other upon expiry of their terms without any tenure limit, to ensure continuity and equality in governance. This created a legitimate expectation that all trustees would support each other’s reappointments. However, the Mistry alleges that this understanding was violated in his case. While other trustees benefited from the resolution and secured their own reappointments, some trustees voted against renewing his term and removed him. He argues that this selective action was arbitrary, discriminatory and a breach of fiduciary duty. Mistry further claims that trustees were legally bound by the 17 October 2024 resolution and could not selectively follow or ignore it. Trustees who accepted reappointment under this resolution had a duty to extend the same benefit to others. Acting otherwise violates the principle that one cannot accept benefits and later reject the same rule.
Legal Challenges and Invalid Vote
The objection also challenges the legality of subsequent decisions. It argues that certain reappointments (of Trustees) were not properly reported under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act), making them invalid. This allegedly led to an illegal composition of the Board of Trustees. Mistry, in his fresh claim, cites amendments introduced in September 2025 (Section 30A of the MPT Act), which limit trustee reappointments and restrict perpetual trustees. He argues that these provisions invalidate lifetime reappointments made under the earlier resolution and require unanimous approval for renewals. Because of these legal violations, Mistry contends that the board’s composition became unlawful. As a result, resolutions passed by such a board, including the decision (Circular No. 88 dated 23 October 2025) rejecting his reappointment, are void and have no legal effect. He also points out that a trustee (Venu Srinivasan), who had ceased to hold office, still participated in the vote against him. Even the trustees later admitted that this participation was invalid. This, according to the Mistry, further renders the resolution illegal.
“The illegal participation of the Applicant No. 3 (Srinivasan) is admitted by the Applicants, particularly since vide a Memo dated 23rd October, 2025, the Trustees acknowledge the inability of Applicant No. 3 to participate and vote upon the Circular Resolution dated 23rd October, 2025, vide footnote which stated, “This entry shall be disregarded and is deleted since Srinivasan was not a trustee of’ Sir Dorabji Tata Trust on the date of communicating his decision on this Circular and was therefore, not entitled to vote”. “Further, in the Change Report under objection, the Applicants have enclosed an Affidavit dated 19th January, 2026 deposed to by Applicant No. 4, Vijay Singh, the alleged reporting trustee wherein he acknowledged that Applicant No. 3 ceased to be a Trustee on and from 24th October, 2025 and was thus not a Trustee on the day on which he communicated his vote/decision via email on the proposed resolution in Circular No. 88. In the light of such admission, any so-called resolutions passed by this admittedly illegally constituted Board of Trustees is non-est and invalid in law”, the objection reads.
Compromised Governance at SDTT
Mistry claims that the trustees acting through an illegal board repeatedly violated the law, especially Section 30A and the Trust Deed. He says they applied the 17 October 2024 resolution selectively for their own benefit, relied on the vote of someone who was no longer a trustee, and wrongfully removed him. This, apart from the aforementioned allegations that some trustees received financial and personal benefits from entities linked to the trusts and ignored binding resolutions despite having agreed to them earlier, together show a pattern of mismanagement and improper administration of the trusts. He argues that owing to these alleged illegal actions of the trustees, the governance of the SDTT trust has been compromised. “In view of the above, it is submitted that the governance structure of SDTT Trust has been compromised. Trustee decisions are no longer uniform, transparent, lawful or consistent. The use of invalid votes, illegal appointments, and selective interpretation of governing principles has materially prejudiced the proper administration of the Trusts”, the objection states.
Mistry Seeks Appointment of Administrator
Further, Mistry states that the decision not to renew his term is illegal and part of a larger pattern of mismanagement and misuse of the trust, going against the Trust Deed. Mistry states that this objection only aims to show that the reappointment of another trustee was carried out illegally and with serious irregularities. He stresses the importance of trust and says he raised these issues to protect its integrity and fulfil responsibilities entrusted to him by the late Ratan N. Tata. Mistry requests the Commissioner to appoint an independent Administrator in place of the current board and argues that this is necessary to stop ongoing mismanagement and restore proper, lawful governance. He clarifies that he does not want to return as a trustee but only wants the trust to function properly under honest and capable leadership. The Applicant/Objector (Mistry) further submits that, being mindful of the immense significance of Applicant No. I Trust for the country, and of the responsibilities entrusted to him by the late Ratan N. Tata, he is compelled to bring to notice the illegalities and irregularities that have occurred within Applicant No. 1 – the SDTT Trust.
“A trust of the stature and importance of Applicant No. 1 (SDTT) cannot, and must not, operate under such irregular and illegal conduct. Therefore, it is also humbly prayed that, in light of the grave illegalities in the administration of the Trust, contrary to the express and unequivocal terms of the Trust Deed, and the immense public interest embedded in all Tata charitable and philanthropic initiatives, an Administrator be appointed in place of the present illegal Board of Trustees. The Applicant/Objector submits that only this step would ensure a timely stoppage of the prevailing maladministration and restore a rigorous adherence to the founding charter and governing regulations of the SDTT Trust. The Applicant/Objector has no desire to rejoin the SDTT Trust as mentioned aforesaid, but only insists on proper functioning of the Trust by able, honest Trustees or an Administrator”, Mehli’s objection says.
Mistry, himself a former trustee of Tata Trusts, had earlier challenged the eligibility of Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh’s trusteeship in the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution (BHJTNCI). Subsequently, in less than twenty-four hours since Mistry’s objection, Srinivasan tendered his resignation from BHJTNCI, citing his pre-occupation with other businesses. Singh, however, still remains a trustee with the BHJTNCI. Now with a fresh objection — Mehli seeks removal of all trustees who allegedly indulged in maladministration from an even bigger Tata Trust — the SDTT. The Tata Trusts, including Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), own roughly 66% of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)