The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a plea seeking a restraining order on the trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) from passing or implementing any decision arising out of or connected with its proposed board meeting to be held on Friday. The high court asked the petitioner, a 61-year-old resident of Thane in Maharashtra, to approach the summer vacation bench, which begins from Saturday.
Petitioner Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede’s plea sought directions from the court to reconstitute the SRTT board, alleging that the premier public charitable trust is in clear and continuing violation of a 2025 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act that caps the number of life trustees.
When the petitioner’s lawyer mentioned the matter before a bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad on Thursday, the high court asked the petitioner to approach the vacation bench in case urgent relief was required to be sought.
Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas for the Trust told the bench that the issue was mentioned on Wednesday before the court and it had not found any urgency at present. He said that the Trust had filed caveats to be heard before passing any interim order.
The proposed May 8 meeting is likely to consider key issues on the agenda, including representation on the board of Tata Sons, differing views among trustees regarding the potential listing of Tata Sons, and the issue of perpetual trustees, among others.
Also Read | Ahead of crucial May 8 meet, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh voted out of Tata Education Trust
Patilkhede, through advocate Rahul Agarwal, stated that the proposed meeting is unlawful as the instrument of the trust does not provide for the appointment of life trustees. In such cases, the petition states, “the number of life trustees at any point in time cannot exceed one-fourth of the total number of trustees by virtue of the amendment brought under Section 30A(2) [of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act].”
The plea claimed that under the usage and practice of the Trust, out of a total of six trustees, three perpetual trustees (also referred to as life trustees or trustees for life) have been appointed between 1989 and 2019.
Story continues below this ad
The petitioner added that, at present, the Trust has six trustees, including Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir H C Jehangir, Noel Naval Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, and senior advocate Darius Khambata. Of these, three are continuing as life trustees, he claimed, adding that this was “contrary to the mandatory statutory limit” on the number of life trustees.
Patilkhede stated that the Trust was established in 1919 and is governed by the will of the late Sir Ratanji Jamsetji Tata dated February 20, 1916. He said that as per the will, “no provision or clause provides for appointment of trustees for life or perpetual/life trustees” and any such practice is only a later internal decision of the trustees.
The petition claimed that the Trust is in clear and ongoing violation of the statutory mandate under Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 considering the Board’s composition, especially with six trustees on the Board, of which three are classified as life trustees.
No action taken
Patilkhede states he had emailed the charity commissioner through his lawyers on April 18, 2026, along with a legal opinion by former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Murari, and followed up with a detailed letter on April 30, 2026, but no action or inquiry was initiated.
Story continues below this ad
The plea claimed “such improper administration of the Trust erodes public confidence”, and any decision taken by the present Board is “void and liable to be set aside”. It sought direction to the charity commissioner to ensure statutory compliance. The plea also sought an ex parte injunction restraining the Trust and its board from holding the proposed meeting on May 8, or taking any decisions until the Board is reconstituted in line with the amended law.
The plea also seeks a declaration from the court that any actions taken by the present Board after September 1, 2025, are liable to be set aside as being in breach of the statutory mandate and fiduciary duties.
