Could The Government Appoint An Administrator In The Internal Disputes Within The Tata Trusts?

The Tata Group, long regarded as a name synonymous with genuine and unshakeable trust rather than merely a business conglomerate, has been thrust into the spotlight by an ongoing conflict of interest among the trustees controlling Tata Trusts.

The dispute, driven by a desire for control, has unsettled not only the corporate world but also the government.

Sources suggest that if the deadlock continues, the government may consider appointing an interim administrator through indirect intervention.

Once seen as a symbol of reliability, the Tata Group now finds itself at a crossroads, torn between its ‘spirit of service’ and the ‘pursuit of power’.

The issue revolves around Tata Trusts, the charitable foundations that hold a majority stake in the country’s largest business group.

The conflict of interest brewing within has alarmed both the financial sector and government authorities.

The situation has grown so serious that Home Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stepped in to intervene.

According to media reports, both ministers met senior representatives from Tata Sons and Tata Trusts to discuss the crisis.

Clearly, the matter is growing increasingly complex, and if the stalemate continues, the government may step in.

Experts note that while the government cannot directly appoint an administrator, under Sections 41-A to 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Charity Commissioner is empowered to do so in cases of mismanagement or indecision within a trust.

Noel Tata at the Root of the Dispute

Experts attribute the turmoil to Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata’s business policies, which reportedly led Tata International to suffer losses of around Rs 3,000 crore in its bicycle, footwear, and umbrella divisions.

It is alleged that Noel Tata withdrew approximately Rs 1,000 crore from the trusts without consulting other trustees, deepening mistrust and widening internal rifts.

Sources suggest that if the matter remains unresolved within a week, the government could step in to appoint an administrator, either directly or indirectly, a move that would not only heighten the group’s challenges but also put its reputation at stake.

Growing Discord Among Trustees

Recent reports indicate that disagreements within the Tata Trusts have been escalating.

The trusts collectively hold around 66% of Tata Sons, meaning they are the ultimate owners of the conglomerate, whose businesses range from salt to semiconductors.

The internal conflict has emerged just as debates resurface over the potential listing of Tata Sons on the stock exchange.

This standoff evokes memories of the nearly decade-old Tata versus Shapoorji Pallonji dispute, one of India’s most significant corporate battles.

At the centre of the current controversy is Mehli Mistry, a trustee of both the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust.

Mistry’s term renewal is due within a day, yet approval from three trustees remains pending. Sources say the deadline for consent is 28 October.

If Mistry, known to be close to Ratan Tata, fails to secure unanimous approval, it would mark an unprecedented situation that could further intensify tensions. Insiders believe consensus is now increasingly unlikely.

Dispute Over Mistry’s Term Renewal

Reports suggest that senior advocate Darius Khambata, banker Pramit Jhaveri, and Jahangir HC Jahangir (Chairman and CEO of Jaslok Hospital) have supported Mistry’s renewal.

However, Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata, Vice-Chairman Venu Srinivasan, and Vijay Singh have yet to respond.

Noel Tata, Ratan Tata’s half-brother, holds leadership roles in several Tata Group firms and became chairman of Tata Trusts following Ratan Tata’s passing.

Last week, Srinivasan secured the trustees’ approval for his own term extension, though Mistry argued that if one trustee’s tenure is renewed, all should receive the same.

Mistry’s supporters claim that renewal should be automatic, granting trustees lifelong tenure. Opponents disagree, stating this is not automatic.

Following Ratan Tata’s demise, Tata Trusts passed a resolution granting ‘life trusteeship’ upon renewal, but legal experts remain divided on the matter.

Rift Deepens Over Former Defence Secretary

Tensions worsened when Mistry’s faction withdrew a proposal to nominate former Defence Secretary Vijay Singh as Tata Trusts’ representative on the Tata Sons board.

Notably, Noel Tata and Venu Srinivasan already serve as nominated members on that board.

Tata Trusts has the right to appoint one-third of Tata Sons’ directors and to exercise veto power.

The seriousness of the crisis prompted Shah and Sitharaman to meet Tata Trusts’ top representatives to discuss ways to ensure stability in the group, given its enormous influence on the Indian economy.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had earlier directed Tata Sons to be listed by 30 September 2025, as part of a scale-based regulatory framework introduced in October 2022.

However, Tata Trusts reportedly advised Tata Sons to seek a deferment of the listing from the RBI.

Meanwhile, the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, which holds about 18% of Tata Sons, has reiterated its demand for the company’s public listing.

Clouds of Uncertainty Loom

Although the Tata Group may not face immediate danger, uncertainty undeniably looms over its future.

Analysts suggest the rift between Mehli Mistry and Noel Tata is not merely administrative but a struggle over policy direction and control.

Given Tata Trusts’ 66% ownership of Tata Sons, the trusts are the real power centre.

Disunity among trustees could slow decision-making, affecting appointments, investments, CSR initiatives, and strategic moves by Tata Sons.

Extended discord could also dent investor confidence. That said, companies such as TCS, Tata Steel, and Tata Motors remain financially strong, ensuring overall business stability, though governance instability may persist until internal consensus is achieved.

Possibility of Government Intervention

Experts believe that although direct government intervention is unlikely, regulatory or legal involvement remains possible.

Tata Trusts operate as public charitable trusts registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Under Sections 41-A to 41-D, the Charity Commissioner may issue directions, order inquiries, or appoint a temporary administrator if a trust faces serious mismanagement, misuse of assets, or deviation from its purpose.

If the board’s indecision affects public funds, the likelihood of such action increases.

Case Could Reach the NCLT

Legal experts note that Tata Sons, as a holding company, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the RBI (as an NBFC).

Under Sections 241–242 of the Companies Act, the central government can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to replace directors or appoint an administrator in cases of misconduct, the same provisions invoked in the Cyrus Mistry case.

A Battle Between Service and Power

Tata Trusts today stands at a critical juncture where the ‘spirit of service’ clashes with the ‘ambition for power’.

Mehli Mistry’s term is no longer just an individual issue; it has become a test of stability versus control.

The government seeks steadiness, insiders want authority, and the market demands transparency.

Only time will tell whether the Tata Group can uphold its moral legacy or if it, too, will become one more corporate empire where principles slowly sink under the weight of power.

Also Read: Explainer: Siang Upper Multipurpose Project In AP And Resistance Against It