The long-running differences within Tata Trusts have escalated into a fresh regulatory challenge, with Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) trustee Venu Srinivasan asking the Maharashtra charity commissioner to order an inquiry into the trust’s administration, governance and involvement in the affairs of Tata Sons Pvt Ltd.
In a letter to the charity commissioner, Mr Srinivasan has questioned Noel Tata’s appointment and continuing status as a perpetual trustee, the basis of his chairmanship of Tata Trusts and the induction of Neville Tata, Noel Tata’s son, into SDTT. He has also alleged that he was excluded from parts of the decision-making process surrounding Neville’s appointment.
Mr Srinivasan has sought a freeze on changes to the SDTT board until the inquiry is completed. He has also asked the regulator to direct Noel Tata to recuse himself from certain decisions involving Tata Sons, including the nomination or authorisation of representatives to Tata Sons general meetings and matters falling under Article 121 of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association.
The latest move comes amid a widening dispute over the role of the Tata Trusts in Tata Sons, where the philanthropic trusts collectively hold about 66% of the holding company. SDTT and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), the two principal trusts, together hold 51.54% of Tata Sons.
Mr Srinivasan's complaint broadly centres on three questions.
The first concerns Noel Tata’s status as a perpetual trustee and the basis for his position as chairman of Tata Trusts. The second relates to the appointment of Neville Tata as a trustee of SDTT in November 2025 and Mr Srinivasan’s contention that he was kept out of the relevant decision-making process. The third concerns what Mr Srinivasan describes as the trusts’ growing involvement in the commercial and strategic affairs of Tata Sons.
The letter also seeks directions preventing Noel Tata from representing SDTT, or other Tata shareholding trusts, as a nominee, authorised representative or proxy at Tata Sons general meetings in matters covered by Mr Srinivasan’s complaint.
Separately, Mr Srinivasan wants Noel Tata to abstain from participating or voting in his capacity as a nominee director of SDTT and SRTT on matters covered by Article 121 of Tata Sons’ Articles.
He has further asked the commissioner to consider action against trustees if the inquiry establishes governance lapses, including suspension or removal where warranted.
The current board of SDTT listed in the letter comprises Noel Tata, Mr Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Darius Khambata, Neville Tata and Bhaskar Bhat. Mr Khambata’s three-year term is due for renewal in November 2026.
The latest complaint follows a particularly contentious month for the Tata group. On 16 September 2026, SDTT circulated circular resolution no107 seeking to restrict Mr Srinivasan’s participation in the proposed listing decision of Tata Sons.
Mr Srinivasan, who is a joint nominee of SDTT and SRTT on the Tata Sons board, rejected the move and subsequently voted in favour of the listing.
On 17th September, Tata Trusts said the option of keeping Tata Sons unlisted should be explored following the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI's) communication on 11 September 2026. The Trusts said all available alternatives should be examined rather than treating a public listing as the only route.
The same day, Noel Tata placed before the Tata Sons board a proposal involving a potential buyout of part of the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) group’s stake in Tata Sons. Tata Trusts said the proposal could provide at least Rs25,000 crore of liquidity to the SP group through a two-tranche transaction over 18 months and a selective capital reduction process through the national company law tribunal (NCLT).
Mr Srinivasan, the chairman-emeritus of TVS, has cited these developments as evidence of what he considers an expanding role for Tata Trusts and its chairman in Tata Sons’ commercial decision-making.
In his letter, he argues that the Trusts’ substantial shareholding in Tata Sons should not translate into the charitable institutions themselves assuming the functions of a commercial enterprise.
Mr Srinivasan has also raised potential tax consequences, arguing that the trusts need to ensure that their activities remain within the framework governing registered non-profit organisations.
Section 345 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 permits a registered non-profit organisation to undertake commercial activities that are incidental to its objectives, provided separate books of account are maintained. Section 346 sets additional conditions for organisations advancing an object of general public utility, including a ceiling of 20% of total receipts for such commercial activities and a requirement to maintain separate accounts.
Mr Srinivasan argues that the nature of the activities he has cited in his complaint raises questions about compliance with these provisions and could have implications for the trust’s charitable status and assets.
However, the tax position has an important qualification following the Finance Act 2026. While Section 346 continues to impose the 20% limit and other conditions, Parliament removed the reference to Section 346 from Section 351’s definition of a 'specified violation' from 1 April 2026. A breach of Section 346, therefore, no longer carries the same automatic registration-cancellation consequence under Section 351 that existed in the original version of the 2025 Act.
Mr Srinivasan has nevertheless argued in his complaint that the scale of SDTT’s shareholding in Tata Sons makes the issue significant for the trust’s charitable corpus.
Mr Srinivasan’s latest complaint questions the circumstances in which Neville Tata was inducted and alleges that he was excluded from the process.
The issue is particularly significant because Neville is Noel Tata’s son. His proposed induction into SRTT had also faced procedural objections from Mr Srinivasan, according to earlier media reports, although his appointment to SDTT was approved in November 2025.
The Charity Commissioner has already been drawn into the Tata Trusts dispute this year. In April, a complaint was filed concerning the composition of the SRTT board and the presence of three perpetual trustees among its six trustees. The complaint cited Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, which limits perpetual or life trustees to one-fourth of the board in circumstances covered by the amended law.
The charity commissioner subsequently directed SRTT to defer a board meeting. Tata Trusts challenged the intervention, arguing that the amended provision was prospective and did not affect perpetual trustees appointed before the amendment came into force. The Trust said the direction had been issued without notice or a hearing.
The commissioner later clarified that the restraint on board meetings applied only to SRTT and not to the other Tata trusts.
Mr Srinivasan is now seeking similar regulatory scrutiny of SDTT, including a direction that the Trust maintain the status quo on its board and refrain from holding meetings or passing circular resolutions on its administration, management or composition until the inquiry is completed.
The complaint has already triggered a response from SDTT. According
to a report from Financial Express, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust is set to file a caveat before the Maharashtra charity commissioner in response to Mr Srinivasan’s complaint.
The latest development adds another layer to a dispute that has increasingly moved beyond internal trustee disagreements and into questions about the governance of the charitable institutions that control a substantial part of Tata Sons.
You may also want to read…
