Mumbai/Bengaluru, Nov. 3 -- Mehli Mistry has challenged the decision of the Tata Trusts to remove him as a trustee before the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, and urged the regulatory body to hear his case before approving the decision by the country's largest philanthropic entities last week. On Friday, Mistry filed a caveat against his removal from the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, and another allied trust, the Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Navsari Charitable Institution, according to an executive privy to the development. Tata Trusts owns 65.9% of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group, which has 26 listed companies, valued at over $300 billion. The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner regulates all appointments and removals of trustees at trusts in the state, and its approval is required before a decision takes effect. A caveat makes it mandatory for the authority to hear Mistry's defence when Tata Trusts sends its decision to remove two of the principal trustees from the board to the Charity Commissioner. Unless adjudicated quickly, the development could mark the start of a lengthy legal case, which could hinder decisions made by Tata Trusts-and consequently impact the operations of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group. This is because many of the decisions of Tata Sons, including the induction of board members and investments exceeding Rs.100 crore, require approval from the Tata Trusts, as per the articles of association of Tata Sons. An email sent to Mistry seeking comment went unanswered. Alay Razvi, managing partner of law firm Accord Juris explained that when a caveat is filed with the Charity Commissioner, it legally obligates the Commissioner to notify and hear the caveator (in this case, Mistry) before passing any order. In simple terms, it prevents the Commissioner from approving Tata Trusts' decision without first allowing Mistry to present his defence. However, filing a caveat alone does not halt or suspend ongoing regulatory proceedings or trustee functions; it only ensures procedural fairness and the right to be heard. "Unless the caveator specifically obtains interim relief, the administrative or corporate functioning of the main company continues unaffected," said Razvi. "Only if the caveat involves questions directly impacting trustee control or management can consequential restraint orders be sought", he added. B Shravanth Shanker, a Supreme Court lawyer, elaborated on the process, stating that even though the caveat prompts a hearing within days or weeks, if the matter becomes contested (which is likely in the present case), the process could take months or longer, including appeals and writs. "If either side seeks interim relief or files writs, the dispute can extend into protracted litigation. Official instructions acknowledge timelines and also provide disposal norms, but practice shows matters can become long," Shanker said. "Outcomes depend heavily on facts, whether the trustee's removal was procedurally flawed, whether statutory pre-conditions were followed, and whether urgent interim relief is justified," said Shanker. Mistry, a Mumbai-based businessman and confidant of late Ratan Tata-he was even the executor of Tata's will and was also a beneficiary-was removed as a trustee after Tata Trusts chair Noel Tata and two vice-chairmen, Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, opposed his appointment as a permanent trustee on 28 October. This decision to remove Mistry surprised the Parsi community, as well as Ratan Tata's two half-sisters, Shireen and Deanna Jejeebhoy, who, in their first media interview with Mint, said they were distressed over the turmoil at Tata Trusts, describing last week's removal of Mehli Mistry as a retaliatory action by other trustees. The genesis of the division inside Tata Trusts started after Noel Tata took over as chair of Tata Trusts on 11 October last year, less than 48 hours after the death of Ratan Tata. Noel Tata was appointed as Tata Trusts' nominee on the board of Tata Sons on 17 October 2024. So, Noel became the third nominee of the Tata Trusts on the board of Tata Sons, after Srinivasan and Singh. The four non-nominee Tata Trusts, including former Citibank India CEO Pramit Jhaveri, Mumbai-based lawyer Darius Khambata, Pune-based businessman Jehangir H.C. Jehangir, and Mehli Mistry, began to question whether their representatives on the Tata Sons board were not sharing with them the decisions made by the board of the holding company. They believed that two classes of Trustees existed: nominee directors, who are privy to the information, and the remaining trustees, who are not. After simmering tensions for over 11 months, the four trustees reviewed Singh's performance at their board meeting on 11 September. Noel and Srinivasan wanted Singh to continue; Mistry, Jhaveri, Khambata and Jehngair did not. The die was cast; Singh was ousted as Tata Trusts' nominee from the board of Tata Sons. On 24 September, Mint reported the events at the 11 September board meeting....