The controversy over a 1989 transfer of Tata Sons shares intensified on Thursday as Tata Trusts vice chairman Vijay Singh formally requested the Maharashtra charity commissioner to initiate an independent inquiry into the transaction .
In a letter dated June 10, Singh told the commissioner that an independent inquiry “would go a long way in restoring public confidence in the administration of the Tata Trusts, and in maintaining their credibility and high standing” . The request concerns the transfer of shares from the Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust (NRTT) to the late industrialist Naval Tata.
The disputed transaction
The complaint, first lodged on June 4 by petitioner Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede, alleges irregularities in the transfer of 833 Tata Sons shares from the NRTT to Naval H. Tata on January 18, 1989—just one week after Naval Tata resigned as a trustee of the trust . The petition claims the transfer lacked legal necessity, was not supported by a valid instrument of transfer, and was carried out without consideration, rendering it unlawful under principles governing public trusts .
Conflict-of-interest concerns
Singh’s letter raised concerns that the shares ultimately benefited members of Naval Tata’s family, some of whom continue to occupy influential positions within the Tata Trusts. Noel Tata, current chairman of the Tata Trusts, is a direct beneficiary as Naval Tata’s son .
“Since Mr Noel Tata, a direct beneficiary of the share transfer, is presently chairman of the Tata Trusts, it could be inferred that a denial authorised by him does create a conflict-of-interest situation, without casting any aspersions on anyone,” Singh wrote .
The complaint had earlier urged the regulator to ensure Noel Tata does not participate in any deliberations concerning the matter .
Tata Trusts’ response
The Tata Trusts have categorically denied the allegations, describing them as “baseless, unsubstantiated and malafide” . In a statement issued on June 5, the Trusts affirmed that the 1989 transaction was “lawful, undertaken for consideration, and fully compliant with the rules in force at that point of time” .
The Trusts noted that the transfer was cleared at appropriate levels, including review by the late Nani A. Palkhivala, one of India’s most distinguished jurists, and approved by the then board of Tata Sons. The transfer was executed on a valid transfer form duly stamped by the Registrar of Companies .
The Trusts have described Patilkhede as a “serial litigator” with no locus standi in the matter, noting that his previous petitions against the Trusts had been dismissed, with the Bombay High Court expressing strong reservations about his conduct .
Singh’s position
While Singh refrained from casting aspersions on any individual, he noted that the Trusts’ rebuttal to the allegations did not provide detailed explanations regarding the transaction. He questioned whether the reliance on Palkhivala’s approval was supported by a formal legal opinion on record, and whether the approval was given in his capacity as a trustee .
“As a trustee of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust as well as the Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust, I feel it is my duty to request an independent enquiry into both the legality and propriety of the transfer of these shares, so that the factual position is conclusively established,” Singh wrote .
Regulatory context
The share transfer controversy comes amid broader regulatory scrutiny of the Tata Trusts. The Maharashtra Charity Commissioner had earlier restrained the Sir Ratan Tata Trust from holding meetings pending an inquiry into alleged violations relating to trustee composition and compliance with the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act .
The charity commissioner’s office has not yet indicated whether it will act on Singh’s request for an independent inquiry.
