Bombay High Court allows petitioner to withdraw plea challenging Tata Trusts board composition
Mumbai: The vacation bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a Mumbai resident to withdraw his complaint in which he had requested the court to stay a key Tata Trusts meeting scheduled to be held this week.
On Wednesday, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice Sadesh Dadasaheb Patil heard the petition filed by 61-year-old Thane resident Suresh Patikhede.
The court expressed concern that despite the petitioner seeking urgent judicial intervention, his formal complaints regarding limits on board composition under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act remained unresolved by the regulator.
“We have to observe that the proceedings have revealed a shocking situation. This arises more from certain representations made to the charity regarding violation of Section 30(A). On a question put to the petitioner, I was informed that the representations were pending,” the bench said in its order.
He added: “Since the court has expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which these proceedings have been filed, counsel very fairly asked for permission to withdraw this petition… In view of the given factual appearance, permission to withdraw was granted… disposed of as withdrawn.”
While Patilkhede was represented by senior advocate T. Raja, Sir Ratan Tata Trusts was represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas.
Patilkhede had first filed a representation before the Bombay High Court last month, where he had alleged that three of the six trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trusts (SRTT), including the chairman, had filed criminal charges. Noel Tata, Pune philanthropist Jehangir HC Jehnagir and Jimmy Tata, brother of the late Ratan Tata, were the permanent trustees. He said this violated rules limiting the number of lifetime trustees to one-fourth of the total number of trustees and sought postponement of Tata Trusts meetings.
The court refused to make such a decision and asked Patilkhede to approach the holiday bench.
flurry of complaints
Patilkhede, who is contesting as an independent candidate against the state’s deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde from the Kopri-Pachpakhadi seat in Thane in 2024, is the third person to file a legal notice for extension of his tenure. Tata Trusts meeting last month.
In April, Delhi lawyer Katyayani Agrawal filed a similar complaint before the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra against the permanent trustees at SRTT on behalf of her client Sunil Tulsiram Patilkhede. It is not yet clear whether Sunil Patilkhede and Suresh Patilkhede are related. Mint Agrawal could not identify the reasons for Sunil Patilkhede and Suresh Patilkhede’s interference in the affairs of the Tata Group.
On Tuesday, Agrawal sent a legal notice to all six trustees of SRTT, alleging irregularities in a 37-year-old transfer. Tata Sons has a stake in a trust owned by Ratan Tata’s father, the late Naval Tata. He also filed legal notices with Tata Sons chairman N. Chandrasekaran, Tata Trusts CEO Siddharth Sharma, Noel Tata’s son Neville Tata and former Titan Co. He also sent it to CEO Bhaskar Bhat. Neville and Bhat are trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT).
SDTT and SRTT control 51.4 per cent of Tata Sons, while six smaller trusts hold another 14.36 per cent, taking the total ownership in the top Tata company to 65.9 per cent.
Strangely, all these complaints came to light when differences between the trustees of Tata Trusts came to light. Last week, Noel Tata opposed the reappointment of TVS chairman emeritus Venu Srinivasan and another trustee member, Vijay Singh, to Tata Trusts’ Tata Education and Development Trust (TEDT). At the meeting proposed to be held on May 16, the company plans to discuss Srinivasan’s continued tenure as a Tata Trust nominee on the board of Tata Sons.
