Eased Rules, Weak Response: Foreign Debt Inflows Miss Expectations Under FAR

Signalling that he is ready for a legal battle, industrialist Mehli Mistry has filed a caveat petition before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, requesting that he be given “a fair hearing” before any formal move is made to remove him as a trustee of Tata Trusts. The caveat, a pre-emptive legal measure, ensures that the court or the Charity Commissioner cannot pass any order against him without first giving him an opportunity to present his side. Mistry’s challenge could complicate the plans of the Noel Mistry camp, potentially leading to another high-profile legal tussle.

According to a source familiar with the development, copies of the caveat have also been served to all trustees of Tata Trusts, including Chairman Noel Tata, on Friday. The filing underscores Mistry’s determination to challenge what he considers “an unjust and procedurally flawed decision” regarding his continuation on the board of the powerful Tata Trusts which own the majority 66 per cent stake in Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group. Legal experts say that by filing a caveat, Mistry has effectively placed himself in a position to contest both the procedure and the grounds of his removal. It also signals that the matter could escalate into a wider legal confrontation, potentially revisiting issues of governance, transparency, and trustee rights within the Trusts.

The Mistry move follows a crucial meeting on October 28, when three trustees — Noel Tata, industrialist Venu Srinivasan, and former Defence Secretary Vijay Singh — voted against the reappointment of Mehli Mistry, thereby preventing his continuation as a trustee. The Charity Commissioner’s approval is required before any formal changes are made in the Trusts’ composition, given their registered status as public charitable entities under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Once Tata Trusts communicate the board’s decision to the Commissioner’s office, the process for Mistry’s formal removal will be initiated. However, Mistry’s caveat ensures that he must be heard before any such step is taken. While a caveat doesn’t initiate litigation, it prevents one-sided orders. In this case, Mistry wants to ensure that no unilateral step is taken by the Trusts without giving him a chance to defend his position.
According to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, “the Charity Commissioner may, either on application of a trustee or any person interested in the trust, or on receipt of a report under section 41B or suo motu may suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee of a public trust”, if he/ she fails to meet certain conditions.

Mistry’s exit has also led to speculation about shifting power equations within Tata Trusts. His exit is seen as a consolidation of influence by Noel Tata, who succeeded Ratan Tata as chairman earlier this year. Mistry, a long-time associate of Ratan Tata and a cousin of former Tata Sons Chairman Cyrus Mistry, was known to have played a behind-the-scenes role during key strategic phases of the Trusts’ functioning.
For now, Tata Trusts are expected to formally communicate the board’s resolution to the Charity Commissioner, setting the stage for the next legal step. Once the Commissioner acknowledges the decision, Mistry could either contest the removal, seek an injunction, or initiate independent proceedings challenging the validity of the trustees’ vote.

Earlier last week, Tata Trusts unanimously reappointed Venu Srinivasan as a lifetime trustee, with the backing of Mehli Mistry. Mistry, along with trustees Pramit Jhaveri, Jehangir H.C. Jehangir and Darius Khambata, supported Srinivasan’s reappointment as a trustee of Tata Trusts. However, they attached a key condition — that all future renewals of trustees must be approved unanimously. In the absence of unanimity, they warned, their approvals would stand withdrawn. During Ratan Tata’s tenure, voting was never an option within the Trusts. Decisions were traditionally reached through consensus and collective agreement — a practice now being tested amid signs of internal friction.

Noel Tata, Srinivasan and Singh apparently ignored the conditions proposed by Mistry. It remains unclear whether Mistry will now revoke his earlier conditional approval for Venu Srinivasan’s continuation as a trustee, or pursue legal recourse to challenge his rejection. Under Ratan Tata’s leadership, the selection of trustees was traditionally guided by consensus and unanimity.