'A Tata is Destroying Tata': Mehli Mistry Challenges Noel Tata's Eligibility
Mehli Mistry challenges Noel Tata's role as trustee, alleging Irish citizenship and UAE residency. Read more on the legal battle over the Tata trust.
A legal battle has erupted within the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution, as Mehli Mistry has formally questioned the eligibility of Noel Tata to serve as a trustee. In a sharp rejoinder filed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner of the Greater Mumbai Region, Mistry has raised serious allegations regarding Noel Tata's citizenship and tax residency status.
Allegations of Foreign Citizenship and UAE Residency
Mehli Mistry alleges that Noel Tata holds Irish citizenship and possesses a UAE Golden Visa, further claiming that Tata is a tax resident of the United Arab Emirates. Mistry has demanded that Noel Tata provide a sworn affidavit to clarify several key points:
- His citizenship status at the exact time of his appointment as a trustee.
- The specific circumstances that led to any alleged change in his citizenship.
- His current status as a tax resident.
Mistry also raised a specific query regarding whether Noel Tata had previously held a Swiss passport simultaneously with an Indian passport.
Claims of Double Standards
The core of Mistry's argument rests on the claim that the trust is applying rules selectively. He contends that while the trust has questioned his own citizenship and overseas tax residency to disqualify him, it has conveniently ignored the same issues regarding 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.
Mistry argues that if foreign citizenship or overseas residency are deemed relevant to a trustee's eligibility, these criteria must be applied with "equal rigour" to everyone involved, including the Reporting Trustee.
The Legal Debate Over Residency
Mistry has challenged the trust's reliance on citizenship as a disqualifier, pointing out that neither the trust deed, the Will, nor its Codicil mandates Indian citizenship or Indian tax residency for trusteeship. He highlighted that Clause 18 of the trust deed only requires a trustee to be a “permanent resident of some place in the Bombay Presidency or Navsari.”
According to Mistry, there is a distinct difference between being a tax resident of a country and the specific residency requirement mentioned in the trust deed.
Battle Over Removal and Locus Standi
Beyond the citizenship row, Mistry is fighting his own removal from the trust. He has disputed the trust's claim that his term ended on October 28, 2025, after a three-year period. Mistry asserts that neither the 1913 Will nor the 1923 trust deed prescribes a fixed tenure or allows for automatic termination after three years.
He further alleged that his removal was illegal and served as retaliation for questions he raised concerning the institution's governance. Mistry specifically pointed toward commissions and personal benefits allegedly received by certain trustees of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT).
A Stark Warning
In a biting critique of the current state of affairs, Mistry expressed his disappointment over the internal strife, stating in the rejoinder, “It is unfortunate and disheartening that a Tata is destroying ‘Tata’.”
The proceedings, filed under Change Report No. 678 of 2026, now seek a determination on the legality of the change in trusteeship and the rejection of the trust's preliminary objections.