Bombay High Court Refuses Urgent Hearing on Plea to Halt Tata Trust Meetings

Tata Trusts Board Meetings Scheduled for May 8 Unaffected by Court Ruling

The Bombay High Court on Thursday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a petition seeking an interim injunction against the May 8 board meetings of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. The petition had sought to restrain the two Tata Trusts from proceeding with the scheduled meetings, where trustees are expected to deliberate on key governance matters, including a possible recast of the Tata Sons board.

The development comes amid expectations that resolutions seeking the removal of Venu Srinivasan from the Tata Sons board may be placed before trustees for voting. Bhaskar Bhat, a Tata Group veteran known for his leadership at Titan Company Limited, is also expected to be considered for a position on the Tata Sons board.

During the hearing, the court asked the petitioner to approach the vacation bench for further relief. The Bombay High Court indicated that the matter could now be taken up in the first week of June. Lawyers representing Tata Trusts were present during the hearing and had already filed a caveat to ensure that no interim order was passed without hearing their side.

Read also: Expert Portfolio Manager Raja Venkatraman Names Top Investment Picks for June 4

The legal challenge stems from allegations related to the composition of trustees within the Tata Trusts network and the applicability of provisions under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. In a letter dated April 18 addressed to the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra, the petitioner alleged that the Sir Ratan Tata Trust was in violation of Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

| Section 30A(2) Violation Allegations | | --- | --- | | Alleged Violation | Exceeding the statutory ceiling of 25% for perpetual or lifetime trustees | | Alleged Violation by | Sir Ratan Tata Trust (three perpetual or lifetime trustees) | | Statutory Ceiling | 25% (one-fourth of total trustee strength) | | Actual Percentage | 50% (three perpetual or lifetime trustees out of six total trustees) |

The provision states that if a trust deed does not expressly allow for perpetual trustees, their number cannot exceed one-fourth of the total trustee strength. In her representation, advocate Katyayani Agrawal alleged that three of the six trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust - Jimmy Tata, J N Mistry and Noel N Tata - were serving as perpetual or lifetime trustees, accounting for 50% of the board, well above the statutory ceiling of 25%.

The representation urged the Charity Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into the trust's board composition and issue directions for corrective action. It further argued that the continuation of three perpetual trustees undermined the intent behind the amendment, which was introduced to prevent concentration of control within a small group of lifetime trustees and strengthen accountability in public charitable trusts. The petitioner also stated that a legal opinion from former Supreme Court of India judge Justice Krishna Murari had been enclosed in support of this interpretation.

Read also: MarketSmith India's 4 June Stock Recommendations