Bombay HC Refuses Urgent Hearing On Plea Against Tata Trusts’ May 8 Meeting

Mumbai, May 7: The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to urgently hear a petition seeking cancellation of a Tata Trusts meeting scheduled for May 8, observing that the matter had already been declined for urgent circulation a day earlier.

The petition was filed by Thane resident Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, who challenged the validity of the proposed meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and alleged violations of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act by entities within the Tata Trusts network.

When the matter was mentioned before the bench headed by the Chief Justice, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for Tata Trusts, informed the court that the plea had already been mentioned on Wednesday and the court had found no urgency in the matter.

Court allows petitioner to approach vacation bench

The bench observed that once the court had declined urgent circulation, the same relief could not be sought again through repeated mentioning. The court, however, said the petitioner was free to approach the vacation bench if urgent relief was still being sought.

The petitioner’s counsel, former Madras High Court judge Justice T Raja, sought liberty to mention the case before the vacation bench. The court clarified that no separate permission was required for doing so.

The petition seeks cancellation of the proposed May 8 board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, claiming that the trust’s composition violates amendments introduced to Maharashtra’s trust laws in September 2025.

Petition challenges trust composition

According to the plea, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust currently has six trustees, including Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir H C Jehangir, Noel Naval Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh and senior advocate Darius Khambata.

The petitioner claimed that three of them are “life trustees” or “perpetual trustees”, which allegedly exceeds the statutory limit prescribed under Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

The petition argued that where a trust deed does not specifically provide for appointment of life trustees, their number cannot exceed one-fourth of the total number of trustees.

Patilkhede contended that the trust deed, based on the will of Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata dated February 20, 1916, contains no provision for appointing trustees for life. He claimed that the practice of appointing perpetual trustees emerged later through internal decisions of the trust.

The plea further alleged that decisions taken by the present board after the amended law came into effect on September 1, 2025, should be treated as invalid if the board is found to be non-compliant with the revised statutory framework.

Also Watch:

The petitioner also claimed he had written to the Charity Commissioner in April 2026, along with a legal opinion by former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari, seeking action against the alleged violations. However, no inquiry or action was initiated, the plea stated.

The petition also sought directions to the Charity Commissioner to ensure compliance with the amended law and sought an interim stay on the proposed meeting and any decisions arising from it.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/