Mehli Mistry raises fresh questions over Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan in Tata Trusts filings

In a rejoinder to submissions made by Tata Trusts before the Deputy Charity Commissioner in Mumbai, former trustee Mehli Mistry has questioned Noel Tata's citizenship and challenged the validity of a vote cast by Venu Srinivasan after his tenure as trustee had allegedly expired. The rejoinders, filed on Thursday and reviewed by Moneycontrol, allege that Tata Trusts selectively applied rules governing trustee eligibility and tenure while failing to address governance concerns raised by Mistry, whose reappointment was blocked in October 2025. The filings also question the engagement of Gerry McGovern, the British automotive designer and former Chief Creative Officer of Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover, by Norton Motorcycles, owned by TVS Motor Company.

Mistry has alleged that the engagement represented a direct conflict of interest involving Venu Srinivasan, chairman emeritus of TVS Motor Company and a Tata Trusts trustee. Mistry has also raised concerns over equity infusions into Tata International and alleged departures from earlier unanimous decisions of the trustees. He has argued that these matters warrant examination by the Charity Commissioner and that the trusts' responses have not specifically rebutted the allegations raised in his application. Mistry's challenge to Noel Tata's citizenship centres on the eligibility conditions prescribed under the 1923 trust deed of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.

The deed contains provisions concerning the Parsi Zoroastrian faith and residence in the former Bombay Presidency or Navsari. Mistry has questioned whether Tata, whom he describes as an Irish citizen holding a UAE Golden Visa, satisfies these requirements. He has sought an affidavit establishing whether Tata was an Indian or Irish citizen when appointed as trustee, whether his citizenship subsequently changed and whether he is a tax resident of the UAE. The rejoinder also seeks clarification on whether Tata previously held a Swiss passport while holding an Indian passport. These citizenship and passport-related assertions have not been independently established.

Mistry argues that the trusts cannot question his citizenship and residency while declining to subject other trustees to equivalent scrutiny. Tata Trusts, however, has maintained that the eligibility restrictions are inconsistent with the original will and codicil -- a legal amendment to a will -- and are unenforceable. The trusts have relied on a March 2000 legal opinion attributed to former Chief Justice of India M H Kania to support this position. Mistry disputes this interpretation, arguing that a private legal opinion cannot override the provisions of a registered trust deed unless they have been lawfully amended or invalidated.

The trusts also decided in April 2026 to seek amendments to the restrictive eligibility clauses. Mistry has cited this decision to argue that the provisions remain operative until formally changed. He has questioned whether trustees who do not satisfy the eligibility requirements can validly participate in resolutions concerning appointments and reappointments, including the decision not to renew his own trusteeship. Srinivasan's vote challenged The challenge involving Venu Srinivasan centres on Circular Resolution No. 88 dated October 28, 2025, concerning Mistry's trusteeship at Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.

Mistry has alleged that Srinivasan participated in the resolution despite his tenure having expired on October 23, five days before he communicated his vote. The rejoinder cites the trust's own response and refers to a footnote acknowledging that Srinivasan's vote should be disregarded because he was no longer a trustee when he communicated his decision. Mistry argues that disregarding the vote retrospectively cannot cure the procedural defect because Srinivasan should not have participated in the decision-making process in the first place. He has consequently challenged the validity of the resolution itself, irrespective of whether Srinivasan's vote ultimately affected the outcome.

According to the filing, Srinivasan was subsequently reappointed as a trustee with effect from November 12, 2025. Mistry has also questioned the trust's reliance on Section 30A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, arguing that the provision cannot be invoked to justify the cessation of his trusteeship while disregarding its implications for Srinivasan during the period when his own tenure had expired. Mistry has further challenged the three-year tenure rule invoked in connection with his removal, arguing that the original governing instruments do not provide for automatic termination of trusteeship after three years.

He has cited provisions dealing with vacancies arising from death, resignation and disqualification, contending that the expiry of a fixed tenure is not among them. He has also referred to an October 17, 2024, resolution of trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Tata Trust that, according to his filing, provided for reappointments without a fixed tenure limit, subject to applicable law. Mistry alleges that this arrangement was applied selectively, including in Noel Tata's case, while his own reappointment was denied. In the proceedings concerning the Bai Hirabai institution, Mistry has challenged Circular Resolution No.

671 dated October 23, 2025, stating that Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh did not approve his reappointment, while Jimmy Tata did not respond. Mistry argues that tenure restrictions cannot be introduced through administrative resolutions if they are not supported by the original governing instruments. Noel Tata's eligibility questioned The rejoinder concerning the Bai Hirabai institution also questions whether Noel Tata, Srinivasan and Vijay Singh satisfy the trust deed's provisions concerning the Parsi Zoroastrian faith and residence. Mistry has offered to submit an affidavit establishing his own eligibility and has sought similar declarations from other trustees.

He has also sought a legible copy of the March 2000 legal opinion attributed to former Chief Justice M H Kania and the documents on which it was based. Separately, the rejoinder concerning Sir Dorabji Tata Trust raises questions about financial benefits received by trustees serving as nominee directors of Tata group companies. Mistry has referred to approximately Rs 1.42 crore in commission received by Noel Tata from Tata Sons in FY25 and sought scrutiny of whether such payments are consistent with the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees. He has argued that the concerns relating to trustee commissions, Norton Motorcycles and Tata International should be examined as part of the wider questions surrounding the administration of the trusts.

The trusts have maintained that Mistry's tenure expired in October 2025, his reappointment was not approved and he therefore has no standing to question subsequent trustee appointments or the administration of the trusts. Mistry has rejected this argument, contending that the change reports directly affect his legal status and that his removal does not prevent him from bringing alleged governance irregularities to the Charity Commissioner's attention. He has cited earlier proceedings concerning Sir Ratan Tata Trust in which an inquiry was initiated following a complaint from an advocate who was neither a trustee nor a beneficiary.

Mistry contends that if an outsider can raise concerns about the administration of a public charitable trust, a former trustee with direct knowledge of its affairs cannot be denied the same opportunity. The rejoinders seek rejection of the disputed change reports recording the cessation of his trusteeship and examination of the eligibility of trustees, the validity of resolutions and the governance issues raised in his submissions. The allegations and legal arguments remain contested and are yet to be adjudicated by the Charity Commissioner.