MUMBAI: Having been voted out of the powerful Tata Trusts, sources indicate that Mehli Mistry is actively weighing his options, including taking legal recourse to challenge the decision of the majority of trustees.
Legal experts, however, caution that Mistry faces a challenging task: he must successfully prove that the decision to vote him out was procedurally flawed, arbitrary, or contrary to the Trust’s governing documents.
Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner, KS Legal & Associates, noted that Mistry’s immediate avenues for challenge are largely twofold: internal redressal and judicial intervention. “Legally speaking, while the Trusts operate under their respective deeds allowing majority decision-making, Mistry could still challenge the process if he can demonstrate that the decision to oust him was procedurally flawed, arbitrary, or contrary to the Trust’s governing documents or the 2024 resolution that purportedly envisaged lifetime reappointments,” Chandwani said.
The Statutory Challenge
Since the Tata Trusts are public charitable trusts based in Maharashtra, they fall under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which provides oversight by the Charity Commissioner.
Akshat Khetan, Founder at AU Corporate Advisory and Legal Services, explained that any change in the composition of trustees must be reported to the Charity Commissioner through a “change report.”
“If Mistry believed that his rejection for reappointment violates the trust deed, lacks due process, or has been carried out in bad faith, he has the option to approach the Charity Commissioner to challenge the validity of the trustees’ decision,” Khetan stated. The Commissioner holds broad powers to examine whether the exclusion of a trustee complies with the law and the trust’s governing documents.
High Court and Civil Court Options
If the rejection involves broader issues of governance, Mistry can also approach the civil courts under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. These actions would seek declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds of breach of fiduciary norms or ultra vires exercise of trustee powers.
Despite these legal routes, Chandwani emphasized that courts are generally reluctant to interfere in internal trust governance unless mala fides, lack of authority, or manifest illegality is established.
“His most pragmatic path lies in combining a limited legal challenge to preserve his locus with parallel behind-the-scenes negotiations, rather than relying solely on protracted litigation that risks judicial deference to majority discretion,” she added.
Ketan Mukhija, Senior Partner at Burgeon Law, echoed this sentiment, stating that courts can intervene where there is a breach of trust, mala fides, or procedural irregularity, but they rarely disturb bona fide decisions made in accordance with the deed.
Mistry, once a trusted confidant of the late Ratan Tata, was initially appointed to the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust by the former group chairman himself in October 2022. Athira TS, Associate Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, noted that Mistry’s ouster highlights evolving power dynamics at the Tata Trusts, which are crucial to the control of Tata Sons.
