Tata Trusts on Friday rejected allegations surrounding a 1989 share transfer by the Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust to the late Naval H Tata, calling them baseless and malicious, and said it would pursue appropriate legal remedies to protect its reputation.
"Any suggestion of impropriety on the part of either the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust, or any of the parties to the transaction is categorically denied. It is affirmed that the transaction was lawful, undertaken for consideration, and fully compliant with the rules in force at that point in time," Tata Trusts said in a statement.
The Trusts added that the transfer had been cleared at appropriate levels, including by the late jurist Nani A Palkhivala, and approved by the then board of Tata Sons. The share transfer was executed through a valid transfer form duly stamped by the Registrar of Companies, according to the statement.
1 June 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Business
The Allegations
The statement comes in response to a legal notice served on the trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust by advocate Katyayani Agrawal on behalf of petitioner Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede.
The notice alleged that 833 equity shares owned by the Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust were transferred to Naval H Tata in his personal capacity without fair consideration, trustee approval or proper transfer documentation, in violation of the Companies Act, Tata Sons' Articles of Association and the charitable objectives of the trust.
It demanded that the recipients make good the alleged loss within 15 days, failing which civil and criminal proceedings would be initiated.
A fresh complaint has since been filed with the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner seeking intervention ahead of the June 8 meeting of trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, requesting an inquiry into the 1989 share transfer and steps to safeguard the interests of the public charitable trusts, the Economic Times reported.
Tata Trusts described Patilkhede as a "serial litigator" who had previously filed cases against the Trusts without a proven locus standi. It cited observations made by the Bombay High Court in a recent writ petition, in which the court expressed concern about the manner in which representations had been made before allowing the petitioner to withdraw the case.
Patilkhede is also the person who had approached the Bombay High Court to stay the May 8 meeting of Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, the two main trusts that hold a controlling 52% stake in Tata Sons, though the court declined to issue an injunction.
Tata Trusts said the allegations were part of a "wilful, malicious and orchestrated campaign" to discredit an institution that has served the country for more than 130 years, and that they were aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the late Ratan N Tata, Jimmy Tata and Noel Tata.
The fresh complaint adds to a series of legal challenges ahead of key trust meetings.
Last month, all Tata Trusts meetings scheduled for May 16 were deferred following a direction from the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner's office, triggered by a separate complaint questioning the composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust board. The complaint alleged that three of six trustees were permanent trustees, in violation of Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, as amended in 2025, which limits perpetual or life trustees to no more than one-fourth of total trustees.
The June 8 Tata Trusts meeting, where presentations on some of Tata Group's loss-making and long-gestation businesses are reportedly expected, precedes a Tata Sons board meeting scheduled for June 12. The presentations are expected to inform future deliberations on a possible third term for Tata Sons Chairman N Chandrasekaran, Moneycontrol reported
