Mehli Mistry has mounted a fresh legal challenge to his removal as a trustee of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, arguing that the decision lacked a valid basis under the trust’s governing documents. In a rejoinder submitted before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mistry has questioned the institution’s interpretation of trustee eligibility, the alleged expiry of his tenure and the circumstances in which his removal was reported. He has also challenged the validity of Venu Srinivasan’s vote on Circular Resolution No. 88, dated October 28, 2025, which pertained to Mistry’s trusteeship at the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.
At the centre of the dispute is Mistry’s contention that neither the original Will nor the trust deed authorises the automatic termination of a trustee’s appointment after three years. He has also challenged the trust’s attempt to dispute his standing in the proceedings, maintaining that his name remains recorded in the Register of Public Trusts.
The rejoinder, filed in Change Report No. 678 of 2026, responds to the trust’s submission dated October 14, 2026, affirmed by Noel Tata. It raises questions about the legal validity of the reported change in trusteeship and calls for the rejection of the trust’s preliminary objections.
Mistry Questions Legal Basis For His Removal
Mistry has disputed the trust’s position that his trusteeship automatically came to an end on October 28, 2025, following the completion of a three-year term.
According to his submissions, neither the Will dated March 20, 1913, nor the trust deed dated December 7, 1923, specifies a fixed tenure for trustees. He has argued that the documents also contain no provision under which an appointment automatically terminates after three years.
On this basis, Mistry has challenged the legality of treating his trusteeship as having expired and subsequently reporting a change in the trust’s composition.
He has also rejected the suggestion that his letter dated November 4, 2025, amounted to an acceptance of the termination. Mistry contends that the communication was sent after the institution had already considered his trusteeship to have ended and therefore cannot be interpreted as a surrender of his legal rights.
Trust Deed’s Residence Clause At The Centre Of Eligibility Dispute
Another major aspect of the rejoinder concerns Clause 18 of the trust deed, which Mistry says sets out the relevant residential qualification for trustees.
The clause requires a trustee to be a “permanent resident of some place in the Bombay Presidency or Navsari”.
Mistry has argued that this requirement should not be conflated with Indian citizenship or Indian tax residency. According to his interpretation, the Will, its Codicil and the trust deed do not expressly make either Indian citizenship or Indian tax residency a prerequisite for holding the position.
He has further maintained that the trust must interpret and enforce its governing provisions consistently rather than introduce additional eligibility conditions that are not contained in the documents.
While contesting the objections raised against him, Mistry has also turned the eligibility argument towards Noel Tata, questioning his alleged Irish citizenship, UAE Golden Visa and tax residency in the United Arab Emirates.
In his rejoinder, Mistry has sought an affidavit from Noel Tata clarifying his citizenship when he was appointed as a trustee, the circumstances surrounding the alleged change in citizenship and his present tax residency.
He has also sought details about whether Noel was an Indian or Irish citizen at the time of his appointment and whether he had previously held a Swiss passport while also possessing an Indian passport.
Mistry argues that the institution cannot apply citizenship and overseas residency considerations selectively.
“The Trust cannot seek to disqualify or cast aspersions upon the Objector by reference to his citizenship or tax residence while conveniently ignoring the Irish citizenship and UAE residency of its own Reporting Trustee,” the rejoinder states.
He has further asserted that the same standards must apply to every trustee if overseas citizenship and tax residency are being considered relevant to eligibility.
“If foreign citizenship and overseas residence are to be treated as relevant considerations, they must be examined in relation to the Reporting Trustee with equal rigour,” it states.
These claims and questions concerning Noel Tata’s citizenship and tax residency form part of Mistry’s legal submissions and have not been independently established.
Additionally, reports suggest that Mistry has also questioned the validity of a vote cast by Venu Srinivasan in connection with Circular Resolution No. 88, dated October 28, 2025, which concerned Mistry’s trusteeship at the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.
According to Mistry, Srinivasan participated in the decision despite his tenure as trustee having ended on October 23, 2025, five days before he communicated his vote.
In his rejoinder, Mistry has relied on the trust’s own response, particularly a footnote acknowledging that Srinivasan’s vote ought to be disregarded as he was no longer a trustee at the time he conveyed his decision.
However, Mistry contends that subsequently excluding the vote does not rectify the procedural irregularity. He argues that Srinivasan, whose tenure had already expired, should not have been involved in the decision-making process at all.
On this basis, Mistry has challenged the validity of the entire resolution, maintaining that the issue is not merely whether Srinivasan’s vote influenced the final outcome, but whether he was legally entitled to participate in the process.
The filing further states that Srinivasan was reappointed as a trustee with effect from November 12, 2025.
Mistry Defends His Right to Contest the Change Report
The rejoinder also challenges the trust’s objection to Mistry’s locus standi, or legal standing, in the matter.
He has argued that the proceedings directly affect his own position as a trustee and that he is therefore entitled to question the reported change. He has also pointed to the continued inclusion of his name in the Register of Public Trusts maintained under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Mistry has linked the dispute over his removal to concerns he had previously raised about the institution’s governance, including commissions and alleged personal benefits received by certain trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT).
He has also criticised the developments surrounding the institution and the wider Tata Group, stating in his rejoinder, “It is unfortunate and disheartening that a Tata is destroying ‘Tata’.”
(With ANI Inputs)
