Mehli Mistry Questions the Eligibility of Two Trustees
Months after his departure from the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), former trustee Mehli Mistry has raised serious concerns regarding the eligibility of two board members at the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution. Mistry argues that Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh do not meet the criteria set forth in the 1923 deed, which prohibits non-Zoroastrians and non-Mumbai residents from serving as trustees. He has formally requested an inquiry into the matter, highlighting potential governance issues within the institution.
Background of the Bai Hirabai Institution
The Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Tata Navsari Charitable Institution is closely linked to the SRTT, a significant stakeholder in Tata Sons, which oversees the expansive $180 billion Tata conglomerate. Established under the will of Sir Ratanji Tata, the institution was created to manage properties in Navsari, Gujarat, the ancestral home of the Tata family. These properties were intended for the benefit of the Parsi community, serving various purposes such as a recreation ground, nursing home, or hospital. The institution plays a crucial role in preserving the legacy of the Tata family and supporting charitable initiatives within the community.
Mistry’s Legal Challenge
In an objection filed with the Maharashtra charity commissioner, Mistry contends that the current governance of the Bai Hirabai Institution is fraught with “illegalities.” He has called for the appointment of an administrator to replace the existing board of trustees, which includes notable figures such as Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata, Jehangir Jehangir, and Darius Khambata. Mistry’s own trusteeship was not renewed last year after a vote against it by Srinivasan and Singh, both of whom also serve on the SRTT board. Mistry claims that their appointments violate the stipulations of the 1923 deed, which explicitly states that only individuals of Zoroastrian faith and permanent residents of Mumbai can serve as trustees.
Allegations Against Current Trustees
Mistry specifically cites clauses 6 and 18 of the 1923 deed, asserting that Srinivasan and Singh do not qualify as trustees. He argues that they have never been Zoroastrian and do not reside permanently in Mumbai, thus rendering them ineligible. Mistry has requested that all trustees submit affidavits confirming their compliance with the trust deed’s requirements. He believes that the actions taken by Srinivasan and Singh, including their votes against his trusteeship extension, are legally invalid and without authority. Mistry’s objection follows the Bai Hirabai Institution’s recent submission of a change report to the charity commissioner, which reflects a revised board composition after his trusteeship was rejected.
Concerns Over Governance and Compliance
Mistry has raised additional concerns regarding the governance of the Bai Hirabai Institution, noting that no meetings have been held in the past two years. He emphasizes that this lack of activity could have serious implications for the beneficiaries of the trust and its charitable legacy. Mistry has requested the charity commissioner to review the minutes of all meetings and inspect the institution’s records during this period. He has clarified that his intentions are not to seek reinstatement but to ensure the institution operates within the legal framework established by Sir Ratanji Tata’s will. Mistry is committed to upholding the trust’s charitable mandate, which he believes is vital for the welfare of the Parsi community.
Observer Voice is the one stop site for National, International news, Sports, Editor’s Choice, Art/culture contents, Quotes and much more. We also cover historical contents. Historical contents includes World History, Indian History, and what happened today. The website also covers Entertainment across the India and World.
Follow Us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, & LinkedIn
