Bombay High Court 'Shocked' Over Conduct Of Litigant Seeking Stay On Sir Ratan Tata Trust Board Meeting; Plea Withdrawn

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 13) disposed of as withdrawn a petition which sought stay on the May 16 high stakes board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), after expressing displeasure over the 'conduct' of the petitioner.

A vacation court presided over by the division bench of Justice Advait Sethna and Justice Sandesh Patil was 'shocked' to note that the petitioner Suresh Patilkhede, who sought a stay on the meeting on the ground that some representations have already been made against the formation of the SRTT board of directors, was not the one who had filed the representation before the Charity Commissioner and rather the said representations were made by some other third party.

"We are constrained to observe that these proceedings bring about a rather shocking State of affairs...This is more so for the reason because certain representations are made to the Charity Commissioner with regards to the alleged violation and non compliance under section 30(a)(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. On a query put, it has been informed that these representations are pending... What is disturbing is that these representations aren't made by the petitioner but by some other party whose particulars aren't known to this court.... The Counsel says this is a mistake by the petitioner and must be condoned... It is however, pertinent to mention that proceedings are moved on grounds of extreme urgency and the next meeting is scheduled on May 16. According to the petitioner if meeting is held it would be contravening the provisions of the Statute and any decision taken ought not to be acted upon as it would be illegal... As the court has expressed displeasure in the manner in which these proceedings are filed, the counsel has very fairly sought leave to withdraw this petition... Considering the given factual complexion the leave to withdraw is granted... Disposed of as withdrawn," the bench dictated in the open Court.

The bench was seized with a plea filed by Suresh Tulisram Patilkhede, who argued that the SRTT board composition violates the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, particularly the second amendment to the Act which was enforced from September 1, 2025. The amendment caps lifetime or perpetual trustees at 25 per cent of the total board strength unless explicitly permitted by the original trust deed.

According to senior advocate T Raja (former Madras HC Judge), who represented Patilkhede, the present SRTT board comprises of six Trustees, of which three (50 per cent) are the perpetual Trustees and thus, the same violates the amended Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

Raja argued that the SRTT board must be re-constituted or modified to conform with the provisions of the Statute and only then the board meeting must be permitted. The senior advocate argued that any decision taken or resolution passed in the meeting would be illegal and invalid as the Board itself is illegal as it does not conform with the amended Statute.

However, the bench was unimpressed with Raja's contentions and raised questions on the maintainability of the prayers made in the petition, one of which was seeking a direction to the Charity Commissioner to ensure that the amended Statute provisions are complied with.

"Look at the prayers... How is it maintainable... It is deemed that the Charity Commissioner will look into this... Your petition seems to be a caveat... Do not preempt anything... This is too early for you to say all this..." Justice Patil remarked.

Making submissions for some board members, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, too pointed out that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor a Trustee of the SRTT. They pointed out that if the contention of the petitioner to retrospectively apply the amendment to the MPT Act, then thousands of Trusts in Maharashtra would then be affected.

Singhvi pointed out that the Government has specifically issued a notification stating the amendment would be applied prospectively and not retrospectively.

Further, Dwarkadas highlighted the fact that from September 2025 till date, the SRTT board has held at least four meetings and that the petitioner Patilkhede never raised any grievance with regards to these meetings and has 'woken up now' to agitate.

The bench then granted Raja some time to seek instructions as to if he would want to withdraw the petition or else an appropriate order would be passed.

After keeping the matter back for some time, Raja returned with the instructions that he would not be pressing any other prayers except the one by which a direction was sought to the Charity Commissioner to decide the representations already made before him by some third parties.

At this, Justice Sethna sought to know if the representation was made by Patilkhede, to which Raja responded in the negative and tried to explain that it would have been a 'mistake' on the part of the petitioner.

"This is not a mistake, there is something more but we don't want to use harsh words... There has to be some semblance... Just because there are certain parties involved... Representation made by somebody, someone else comes in the court . This isn't a mistake at all... We are not making any other comment now," Justice Sethna remarked.

With this, the bench disposed of the petition after Raja, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the plea.

Case Title: Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra (WP(L)/16263/2026)