Mehli Mistry has formally objected to the trusteeship of five individuals, including Noel Tata, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, in the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), escalating an ongoing dispute within the Tata Trusts, which collectively own 66% of Tata Sons.
In a fresh application filed with the Maharashtra Charitable Commissioner, Mistry has challenged the eligibility and actions of several trustees, alleging illegalities, financial impropriety and governance lapses.
Among the key allegations, Mistry claims that Vijay Singh, a trustee associated with multiple Tata Trusts, received substantial financial benefits in the form of commissions and remuneration from various Tata Group entities during his tenure as a nominee director. He also alleges that Venu Srinivasan breached fiduciary duties by using Tata employees for personal work.
Mistry has clarified that his objective is not reinstatement but to expose what he describes as “illegal functioning” and mismanagement within the Trust.
Allegations of Financial Benefits and Conflict of Interest
Detailing the claims against Vijay Singh, the objection states, “The Applicant/Objector (Mistry) respectfully submits that, in a deeply concerning turn of events, the governance of the Tata Trusts has been seriously compromised on account of the alleged illegal acts of certain Trustees.”
It further adds, “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.”
According to the filing, Singh earned approximately ₹15.89 crore between FY 2013-14 and 2024-25, with remuneration rising from ₹44 lakh in 2021-22 to ₹3 crore in 2023-24 and ₹3.2 crore in 2024-25.
The objection also notes additional payments from Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd and Tata Sikorsky Aerospace Ltd, including ₹3.52 crore from Tata Advanced Systems and smaller sums from other entities.
On Srinivasan, the filing alleges a potential conflict of interest, stating that he and his son engaged Jaguar Land Rover executive Gerry McGovern as a consultant for Norton Motorcycles, a subsidiary of TVS Holdings.
“Reportedly, the TVS Chairman… engaged Mr Gerry McGovern… as a consultant… This apparent act in conflict of his interests… must be assessed,” the objection states, calling for disclosure on any payments made.
Dispute Over Removal and Board Actions
Mistry claims that he raised concerns about these practices before the Board of Trustees and that his insistence on stopping them led to his removal.
“Upon learning of the commission being pocketed… and the use of a Tata employee… the Applicant/Objector drew the attention of the other Trustees… The Applicant/Objector verily believes… Applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 maliciously declined to renew his term,” the application reads.
The dispute traces back to October 2024, when trustees of SDTT and Sir Ratan Tata Trust passed a resolution agreeing to reappoint each other without tenure limits. Mistry argues that this created a legitimate expectation of uniform reappointments.
He alleges that while other trustees benefited from the resolution, his term was selectively not renewed, calling the decision “arbitrary, discriminatory and a breach of fiduciary duty.”
Legal Challenges to Trustee Appointments
Mistry has also questioned the legality of subsequent board decisions, stating that certain trustee reappointments were not properly reported under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act), rendering them invalid.
He cites amendments introduced in September 2025 under Section 30A of the Act, which limit trustee reappointments and restrict perpetual tenure. According to him, these provisions invalidate lifetime appointments and require stricter approval processes.
As a result, he contends that the board was unlawfully constituted and that resolutions passed by it — including the decision rejecting his reappointment — are void.
Invalid Vote Allegation
The objection further claims that Venu Srinivasan participated in a vote after ceasing to be a trustee, rendering the resolution invalid.
“The illegal participation of the Applicant No. 3 (Srinivasan) is admitted… since… he was not a trustee… and was therefore not entitled to vote,” the filing states.
It adds that an affidavit by Vijay Singh acknowledged Srinivasan had ceased to be a trustee from October 24, 2025, reinforcing the claim that the board’s decisions were legally untenable.
© tvsmotor.comCall for Independent Administrator
Mistry argues that these actions reflect a broader pattern of mismanagement and improper administration, compromising the governance of the Trust.
“In view of the above… Trustee decisions are no longer uniform, transparent, lawful or consistent,” the objection states.
He has requested the Commissioner to appoint an independent administrator to replace the current board, stating that such intervention is necessary to restore lawful governance.
“A trust of the stature and importance of… SDTT cannot… operate under such irregular and illegal conduct,” the filing adds, reiterating that he does not seek reinstatement but wants proper functioning of the Trust.
Background to the Dispute
The conflict intensified after Mistry exited the Tata Trusts in November last year following a board vote against him, despite an earlier resolution supporting his continuation.
He had earlier challenged the eligibility of Srinivasan and Singh in another Tata-linked charitable institution. Srinivasan subsequently resigned from that body, while Singh continues to remain a trustee.
With the latest filing, Mistry has now sought the removal of trustees from the larger SDTT, bringing renewed scrutiny to governance practices within one of India’s most influential philanthropic institutions.
Leave a Reply