Mehli Mistry has challenged Noel Tata's role as a trustee, citing concerns over his citizenship and tax residency, while contesting the legitimacy of his own removal from the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution.
Mehli Mistry Challenges Noel Tata's Trust Eligibility
Mehli Mistry has questioned Noel Tata’s eligibility to continue as a trustee of the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, alleging that he holds Irish citizenship, a UAE Golden Visa and is a tax resident of the United Arab Emirates. In a rejoinder filed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mistry has sought an affidavit from Noel Tata disclosing his citizenship at the time of his appointment, the circumstances surrounding the alleged change in citizenship and his current tax residency status. The rejoinder was filed in Change Report No. 678 of 2026, responding to the trust's reply dated October 14, 2026, which was affirmed by Noel Tata.
Mistry has alleged that the trust is selectively questioning his citizenship and overseas tax residency while ignoring the same issues concerning its own reporting trustee, Noel Tata. “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 argued that if foreign citizenship and overseas residence are relevant to determining a trustee's eligibility, the same criteria must apply to all trustees. “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.
Details on Citizenship and Residency Concerns
Mistry has also sought clarification on whether Noel was an Indian or Irish citizen when appointed as a trustee and whether he had previously held a Swiss passport while also holding an Indian passport. He has further asked Noel to disclose whether he is currently a tax resident of India or another country. The rejoinder also challenges the trust's reliance on Mistry's citizenship and tax residency, arguing that neither the Will, its Codicil nor the trust deed makes Indian citizenship or Indian tax residency a condition for trusteeship.
Mistry has maintained that Clause 18 of the trust deed requires a trustee to be a “permanent resident of some place in the Bombay Presidency or Navsari”. He has argued that foreign citizenship or tax residency should not be confused with this specific residence requirement. He has further contended that trust must apply the provisions of the deed uniformly to all trustees.
Dispute Over Trusteeship and Removal
Separately, Mistry has challenged the trust's objection to his locus standi in the proceedings, arguing that the change report directly concerns his own trusteeship. He has pointed out that his name continues to appear in the Register of Public Trusts under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. He has alleged that his removal was illegal and linked it to questions he had raised about the institution's governance and commissions and personal benefits allegedly received by certain trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT).
Mistry has also disputed the trust's claim that his trusteeship ended on October 28, 2025, following the expiry of a three-year term. He has argued that neither the Will dated March 20, 1913, nor the trust deed dated December 7, 1923, prescribes a fixed tenure or provides for the automatic termination of a trustee's appointment after three years. He has also rejected the trust's reliance on his letter dated November 4, 2025, stating that it was written after the trust had already treated his trusteeship as having ended and should not be considered a waiver of his legal rights.
Taking a swipe at the developments surrounding the institution and the Tata Group, Mistry stated in the rejoinder, “It is unfortunate and disheartening that a Tata is destroying ‘Tata’.” The rejoinder seeks rejection of the trust's preliminary objections and a determination of the legality of the reported change in trusteeship. The allegations and questions regarding Noel Tata's citizenship and tax residency have been raised by Mistry in the rejoinder and have not been independently established by the document. The report is based on the rejoinders filed by Mistry and objections raised therein. This report is in no way a confirmation or non-confirmation on either Noel’s or Mehlis’ citizenship status.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
