MUMBAI: Maharashtra Charity Commissioner has asked the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) to respond by Oct 12 to complaints from its vice-chairmen, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, escalating an internal governance battle that could change how Tata Sons is controlled.In separate complaints filed on Sept 25, Srinivasan and Singh alleged that SDTT had exceeded its charitable mandate by intervening in the commercial and strategic affairs of Tata Sons. SDTT is the largest shareholder in Tata Sons.They had asked the commissioner to issue interim orders barring the trust from holding board meetings, restraining it from exercising its voting rights at Tata Sons’ annual general meeting (AGM), suspending or removing trustees if violations are established, and stopping chairman Noel Tata from participating in Tata Sons board decisions in his capacity as a nominee director.The commissioner can either hold a hearing involving both the complainants and respondents or decide the matter on the written complaints filed by Srinivasan and Singh and the written submissions made by SDTT, according to a person who is familiar with the proceedings.The commissioner’s decision to seek SDTT’s response comes after chairman Noel Tata and his son, Neville Tata, an SDTT trustee, filed six caveats on Sept 30 to pre-empt adverse orders against the trust and themselves. The two, who are also trustees of six other Tata trusts that hold shares in Tata Sons, filed 30 more caveats. The 36 filings, running to 150 to 200 pages, invoked Sections 41D and 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, which deal with the removal of trustees and suspension of a trust board, respectively, as well as Section 41E, which empowers authorities to restrain dealings involving trust property, in this case Tata Sons.In May, the commissioner barred the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), the second-largest shareholder in Tata Sons, from holding board meetings after Srinivasan complained that its board composition violated the Act.The complaint argued that three members of SRTT’s then six-member board were perpetual trustees, above the statutory cap of 25% of a trust’s board strength. The commissioner passed the order ex parte because SRTT had not filed a caveat and learned of the complaint only from the order.Srinivasan and Singh’s latest requests, if the commissioner entertains them, would upend the Tata Group’s governance framework. Any interim order would curtail SDTT’s functioning, impairing the two largest Tata Sons shareholders’ ability to influence key governance decisions at the holding company.
