/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177812502698675437.webp)
What is the story about?
A writ petition has been filed asking the Bombay High Court to issue an interim injunction restraining the upcoming May 8 board meetings of two Trusts — the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, even as key decisions, including a recasting of the Tata Sons board, are set to be discussed by the trustees on May 8
Sources told Moneycontrol that Tata Trusts have also filed a caveat before the Bombay High Court, anticipating litigation of this nature. The move is aimed at ensuring that no adverse order is passed without hearing the Trusts’ submissions, the sources said.
Moneycontrol had earlier reported that the Trustees are likely to vote on resolutions seeking to remove TVS Group Chairman and Tata Trusts vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan from the board of Tata Sons. He is slated to be replaced on the Tata Sons board by group veteran Bhaskar Bhat, best known for his stewardship of Titan. These items are on the agenda for Friday’s meeting, according to people familiar with the matter.
The May 8 meetings will be closely watched because of their potential implications for the future governance structure of Tata Trusts and Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group. Notably, Article 121A of the Tata Sons’ Articles of Association stipulates that key decisions will have to be approved by a majority of the directors nominated by Tata Trusts on the Tata Sons board.
The writ petition assumes importance in this context, said the people cited. The petition seeks an ex parte interim injunction restraining the trusts and their trustees from holding the proposed board meetings on May 8 and from passing any resolutions until the boards are reconstituted in accordance with Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
It is not known if the case will be heard by the court today.
The petition, filed by Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, also seeks to restrain the trusts and trustees from “passing, recording, implementing or giving effect to any resolutions, approvals, financial sanctions, appointments, policy decisions or governance actions” arising out of the proposed May 8 meetings until the boards are reconstituted as per the statutory mandate.
Further, the plea seeks a declaration that actions taken by the current board of trustees after September 1, 2025, violate Section 30A(2) of the Act and amount to a “continuing illegality and breach of fiduciary duty”.
Maharashtra Public Trust Act
The legal challenge is linked to allegations surrounding the composition of trustees within the Trust's network and the applicability of provisions under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
A letter dated April 18, written by the petitioner to the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra, alleged that the Sir Ratan Tata Trust violated Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
The provision states that if a trust deed does not specifically permit perpetual trustees, the number of such trustees cannot exceed one-fourth of the total trustee strength.
In her representation, Agrawal alleged that three out of six trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust — Jimmy Tata, J N Mistry and Noel N Tata — were functioning as perpetual or lifetime trustees, constituting 50 percent of the board, against the statutory limit of 25 percent.
The letter urged the Charity Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into the trust’s board composition and direct corrective measures.
The representation also argued that the continuance of three perpetual trustees defeated the objective of the amendment, which sought to prevent concentration of control among a small group of lifetime trustees and improve accountability in public charitable trusts.
The petitioner also claimed to have enclosed a legal opinion from former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari in support of the interpretation.
Cap on Lifetime Trustees Prospective
Following the initial representation filed before the Charity Commissioner, the Tata Trusts had obtained a legal opinion that said that the changes to the Maharashtra Act limiting the number of lifetime trustees were prospective, as per media reports. The Trusts had subsequently sought to go ahead with the May 8 meeting.
Differences Within the Trusts
The latest legal move adds another layer of uncertainty around the governance structure of Tata Trusts at a time when internal differences within the Trusts have already intensified over board representation, trustee appointments and oversight of Tata Sons.
Moneycontrol had earlier reported that the proposed reappointments of Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh at the Tata Education and Development Trust had failed after not receiving unanimous approval from trustees. Internal communications reviewed by Moneycontrol showed that both Srinivasan and Singh would cease to be trustees of TEDT from May 10.
Emails sent to Tata Trusts and Katyayani Agrawal, a lawyer representing the petitioner, did not elicit a response till the time of publication.
Sources told Moneycontrol that Tata Trusts have also filed a caveat before the Bombay High Court, anticipating litigation of this nature. The move is aimed at ensuring that no adverse order is passed without hearing the Trusts’ submissions, the sources said.
Moneycontrol had earlier reported that the Trustees are likely to vote on resolutions seeking to remove TVS Group Chairman and Tata Trusts vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan from the board of Tata Sons. He is slated to be replaced on the Tata Sons board by group veteran Bhaskar Bhat, best known for his stewardship of Titan. These items are on the agenda for Friday’s meeting, according to people familiar with the matter.
The May 8 meetings will be closely watched because of their potential implications for the future governance structure of Tata Trusts and Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group. Notably, Article 121A of the Tata Sons’ Articles of Association stipulates that key decisions will have to be approved by a majority of the directors nominated by Tata Trusts on the Tata Sons board.
The writ petition assumes importance in this context, said the people cited. The petition seeks an ex parte interim injunction restraining the trusts and their trustees from holding the proposed board meetings on May 8 and from passing any resolutions until the boards are reconstituted in accordance with Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
It is not known if the case will be heard by the court today.
The petition, filed by Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, also seeks to restrain the trusts and trustees from “passing, recording, implementing or giving effect to any resolutions, approvals, financial sanctions, appointments, policy decisions or governance actions” arising out of the proposed May 8 meetings until the boards are reconstituted as per the statutory mandate.
Further, the plea seeks a declaration that actions taken by the current board of trustees after September 1, 2025, violate Section 30A(2) of the Act and amount to a “continuing illegality and breach of fiduciary duty”.
Maharashtra Public Trust Act
The legal challenge is linked to allegations surrounding the composition of trustees within the Trust's network and the applicability of provisions under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
A letter dated April 18, written by the petitioner to the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra, alleged that the Sir Ratan Tata Trust violated Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
The provision states that if a trust deed does not specifically permit perpetual trustees, the number of such trustees cannot exceed one-fourth of the total trustee strength.
In her representation, Agrawal alleged that three out of six trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust — Jimmy Tata, J N Mistry and Noel N Tata — were functioning as perpetual or lifetime trustees, constituting 50 percent of the board, against the statutory limit of 25 percent.
The letter urged the Charity Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into the trust’s board composition and direct corrective measures.
The representation also argued that the continuance of three perpetual trustees defeated the objective of the amendment, which sought to prevent concentration of control among a small group of lifetime trustees and improve accountability in public charitable trusts.
The petitioner also claimed to have enclosed a legal opinion from former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari in support of the interpretation.
Cap on Lifetime Trustees Prospective
Following the initial representation filed before the Charity Commissioner, the Tata Trusts had obtained a legal opinion that said that the changes to the Maharashtra Act limiting the number of lifetime trustees were prospective, as per media reports. The Trusts had subsequently sought to go ahead with the May 8 meeting.
Differences Within the Trusts
The latest legal move adds another layer of uncertainty around the governance structure of Tata Trusts at a time when internal differences within the Trusts have already intensified over board representation, trustee appointments and oversight of Tata Sons.
Moneycontrol had earlier reported that the proposed reappointments of Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh at the Tata Education and Development Trust had failed after not receiving unanimous approval from trustees. Internal communications reviewed by Moneycontrol showed that both Srinivasan and Singh would cease to be trustees of TEDT from May 10.
Emails sent to Tata Trusts and Katyayani Agrawal, a lawyer representing the petitioner, did not elicit a response till the time of publication.
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177807004085355866.webp)
/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-177808757802266040.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177796252712882509.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-17780000316803521.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177798256823093600.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177804505728053869.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-177804256314639751.webp)
