Patilkhede has been permitted by the Bombay High Court to file his writ petition challenging the management of SRTT as a life trustee. According to the oral observations made by the court, Patilkhede lacked locus standi to file the petition in question. This creates a legal platform for the Trust without any hindrance.

In its observation, a division bench consisting of Justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Dadasaheb Patil observed that Patilkhede was not the original complainant in the matter and that the original complainant in the other case before the Charity Commissioner could not be named in the writ petition. Earlier, senior advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, representing the Tata Trusts and other respondents, had argued in court that the petitioner had no standing to file the petition. Earlier, on May 7, the court had refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioner.

Petitioner Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede primarily argued that the current board composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust violates the statutory limits set by the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Second Amendment) Act, 2025. The Maharashtra government added Section 30A(2) to the trust laws through a new ordinance. This rule states that, unless otherwise expressly provided in the trust deed, the number of life trustees cannot exceed one-fourth (25 percent) of the trust's total capacity. This rule came into effect on September 1, 2025.

According to the petition, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust currently has six trustees, three of whom (Jimmy Naval Tata, Jehangir H.C. Jehangir, and Noel Naval Tata) serve as life trustees. This represents 50 percent of the board, double the statutory limit of 25 percent. Based on this, the petitioner sought to invalidate all decisions taken by the Trust after September 1, 2025.

This legal dispute could also directly impact the management of Tata Sons, the Tata Group's holding company. The Sir Ratan Tata Trust holds a 23.56 percent equity stake in Tata Sons, while all Tata Trusts together control 66 percent of Tata Sons. The petitioner sought to stay the proposed meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust, scheduled for May 16. The agenda for this meeting included reconsidering the representation of Tata Trusts on the Tata Sons board. Currently, the Tata Sons board includes Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata and Vice Chairman Venu Srinivasan as nominated members of the trust.

With the petition withdrawn, the crucial meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust scheduled for May 16th can now be held without any legal impediment. This case has made it clear that courts closely examine the legal rights of litigants in corporate and trust-related disputes. It will be important to see what long-term strategic steps the trust management takes to comply with new state laws.