google.com, pub-8701563775261122, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
Hollywood News

Tata Trusts revises Venu Srinivasan’s term from life to three years to comply with Maharashtra Ordinance

Tata Trusts said in a statement that its board of directors, in its meeting on Tuesday, decided to appoint the chairman emeritus of TVS Motor Co. for a period of three years from November 12, 2025, in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements, and appoint him as vice-chairman of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.

The decision comes in the wake of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, published by the state government on August 30.

“It has been noticed that in various trust documents, there is no clarity about the appointment of permanent or permanent trustees and tenured trustees and their tenure, leading to numerous cases before the Charity Commissioner and the court,” the ordinance, signed by the then Maharashtra Governor C P Radhakrishnan, who took over as vice-chairman on September 9, said.

Key Takeaways

  • Tata Trusts has extended Venu Srinivasan’s tenure to three years for life, in line with the Maharashtra government’s Regulations, which stipulate that only one-fourth of the trustees of a trust can be permanent.
  • The decision comes in the wake of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, published by the state government on August 30.
  • It is considered appropriate to include the Act with the addition of new section 30A regarding the appointment of privileged trustees and permanent trustees where the trust document does not contain any special provisions, so the regulations have been added with reference to the new upper limit.
  • However, legal experts clarified that as per the Maharashtra government regulation, Tata Trusts can have only one permanent trustee as one-fourth of the six is ​​less than two.
  • There was no provision for appointment of life trustees in the original deed of Tata Trusts. However, on October 17, 2024, the seven then-trustees unanimously passed a resolution approving the appointment of outgoing trustees as permanent trustees.
  • If the Tata Trusts’ instruments remain silent on the issue of permanent trustees, they need to restructure to reduce the number of permanent trustees to a quarter or less, or convert some of them into permanent trustees through reappointment cycles.

“This affects the functioning of the foundations, the well-being of the beneficiaries and the public,” he said. Referring to the new cap, the regulations said, “Where the trust instrument does not contain any specific provision, it is considered appropriate to include the Act by inserting new section 30A regarding the appointment of tenure-track trustees and permanent trustees.” he added.

The new rule went into effect on September 1.

trust management

Tata Trusts, an umbrella group of philanthropic organisations, which owns 65.9% of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., the holding company of the Tata group, is managed by six trustees: chairman Noel Tata, TVS Motor Co. chairman emeritus Venu Srinivasan, retired defense minister Vijay Singh, Mumbai-based lawyer Darius Khambata, former CEO of Citibank India Pramit Jhaveri and Pune-based philanthropist and businessman Jehangir HC Jehangir.

Mehli Mistry, one of the trustees, was sacked last month after a year-long dispute between chairman Noel Tata and vice-chairmen Singh and Srinivasan led to her opposing his appointment as a life trustee.

Chairman Noel Tata was appointed permanent trustee for life in January, while Srinivasan was appointed permanent trustee in October.

However, legal experts clarified that as per the Maharashtra government regulation, Tata Trusts can have only one permanent trustee as one-fourth of the six is ​​less than two.

“In the original Tata Trusts deed, there was no provision for appointment of trustees for life. However, on October 17, 2024, the then seven trustees unanimously passed a resolution directing that the trustees whose tenure had expired be made permanent trustees,” senior Supreme Court lawyer H P Ranina said. “However, Tata Trusts did not make any changes to its title and merely approved the decision. Since the new rules came into force from September 1, the decision to appoint Venu Srinivasan as a permanent trustee is null and void.”

different results

If a foundation’s governing body remains silent about its permanent (lifetime) board of trustees, the regulations require the foundation to ensure that those trustees do not exceed one-quarter of the board, the lawyers said.

“If Tata Trusts’ vehicles remain silent on the issue of permanent trustees, they need to restructure to reduce the number of permanent trustees to a quarter or less, or convert some of them into permanent trustees with re-appointment cycles,” said Rohit Jain, managing partner of Singhania & Co.

Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust are the two main Tata trusts that own 27.98% and 23.56% of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. had decided on October 17 last year to make all trustees permanent upon the expiration of their current tenure.

Jain clarified that board decisions taken before September 2025 are not automatically free from the provisions of the law.

The regulation also says

This is what the Maharashtra government regulation says.

“If the trust instrument does not contain specific provision for the appointment of trustees as permanent trustees, then, notwithstanding anything contrary to the use of the trust or any decision that the trustees may have taken, the number of permanent trustees at any point in the trust shall not exceed one-fourth of the total number of trustees,” the six-page regulation dated Aug. 30 states. It is said.

Jain added that the ordinance is an interim measure enacted to address emergencies and must be approved by the legislature within six weeks of the first session after reconvening. This means that the maximum effective life of any regulation is six months plus six weeks. If the legislative body does not regulate the regulation within this period, it will automatically expire.

Trusts can also circumvent the ordinance by challenging its validity in the high court, according to Bombay High Court lawyer Yash Joglekar.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button