Mehli Mistry has questioned Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata’s Irish citizenship and tax residency status amid an ongoing legal dispute over his removal from three trusts. Mistry raised these issues in a submission filed before the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra (CCM) on Thursday, while defending his right to object to change reports filed by Tata Trusts regarding the cessation of his trusteeship.
Tata Trusts had, last month, referred to Mistry’s UK citizenship and UAE tax residency status while challenging his locus standi to file objections to change reports submitted by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
Mistry has now hit back. In a rejoinder to Tata Trusts’ response, he said Noel Tata is an Irish citizen and a holder of a UAE Golden Visa, and has sought directions from the CCM requiring Tata to file an affidavit clarifying these facts. “If foreign citizenship and overseas residence are to be treated as relevant considerations, they must be examined in relation to the trustee [Tata] with equal rigour. The Trust cannot demand scrutiny of the objector [Mistry] while claiming exemption from the same scrutiny for its own trustee,“ said Mistry.
Questions over religion and residency have emerged as Mistry and Tata Trusts differ on the eligibility criteria for trusteeship of the Bai Hirabai Trust. While Mistry has emphasised the trust deed, which restricts trusteeship to Parsi Zoroastrians, Tata Trusts has argued that these conditions conflict with the original will and codicil governing the trust and should therefore not be relied upon.
Tata Trusts did not immediately respond to Mistry’s latest filing. The matter is now scheduled to be heard by the CCM on December 3. Mistry stepped down as a trustee after board members voted against his reappointment to three trusts, including the Sir Ratan Tata Trust. Subsequently, Tata Trusts filed change reports informing the CCM of the end of Mistry’s tenure.
In June, Mistry filed objections to the reports, alleging issues of misgovernance within the trusts. While Tata Trusts dismissed the objections as extraneous, Mistry has defended his complaint. Mistry said he is not a stranger or a busybody seeking to interfere in the affairs of the trusts. “The Trusts’ preliminary objection regarding locus standi is misconceived,“ he said.
Separately, in his response to the SDTT’s submission, Mistry has also questioned the validity of Venu Srinivasan’s vote at last October’s board meeting. According to Mistry, Srinivasan’s term as trustee ended on October 23, and he was reappointed only on November 12. Therefore, Mistry argues that Srinivasan was not entitled to vote at the October 28 meeting on Mistry’s reappointment.
Published on November 5, 2026
