The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner has granted Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) an additional week to respond to complaints filed by two trustees regarding governance issues. Although SDTT was due to respond by October 12, it requested more time, according to sources.
SDTT, one of the two main structures of Tata Trusts, is under close scrutiny following the boardroom battle at Tata Sons on September 17. The other key shareholder trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), was previously frozen by the Charity Commissioner earlier this year due to alleged violations of norms.
Vice-chairpersons of Tata Trusts, Venugopal Srinivasan and Vijay Singh, pointed out management deficiencies and stated that SDTT is engaging in commercial matters of Tata Sons instead of focusing on its philanthropic mission. Their complaints also raised the issue of Noel Tata's perpetual trusteeship as Chairman of Tata Trusts. Srinivasan and Singh, both trustees of SDTT, demanded an investigation into the trust's administrative and managerial activities.
Tata Trusts, which holds a 66 percent stake in Tata Sons, the conglomerate's holding company, did not comment on the situation. SDTT and SRTT, part of the Tata Trusts ecosystem, own 27.98 percent and 23.56 percent respectively in Tata Sons. Out of the total seven shareholder entities within Tata Trusts, the remaining five are JRD Tata Trust with 4.01 percent, Tata Education Trust and Tata Social Welfare Trust with 3.73 percent each, RD Tata Trust with 2.19 percent, and Sarvajanik Seva Trust with 0.10 percent.
Srinivasan, who is also a nominated director on the Tata Sons board, played a key role in the September 17 meeting, which supported two important decisions: granting N Chandrasekaran a third term as Chairman of Tata Sons after his term ends in February 2027, and including Tata Sons in the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) request for listing. Noel Tata, also a nominated director on the Tata Sons board, opposed both proposals and used his veto power to prevent Chandrasekaran from getting another term. However, Srinivasan's vote in favor of extending Chandrasekaran's term sparked controversy, as legal opinions were divided regarding the legality of the deciding vote to resolve the deadlock among nominated directors. The Tata Sons Articles of Association (AoA) stipulate that key board decisions must be approved by a majority of the nominated directors.
The boardroom battle and subsequent verbal war between various stakeholders followed SDTT's decision that Srinivasan should abstain from discussions at the Tata Sons board meeting on September 17. This decision stemmed from Srinivasan's view on the listing of Tata Sons—an issue expected at the board meeting. Tata Trusts opposes the idea of listing, whereas Srinivasan had supported it earlier this year, intensifying the disagreements. Srinivasan objected to the SDTT's decision and voted for Chandrasekaran's third term. No votes were cast regarding the listing of Tata Sons.