Top News

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Ratan Tata’s undistributed listed and unlisted shares not explicitly mentioned in his will will be transferred to the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and Trust. The court clarified that only clause 13A of the will was replaced by a subsequent codicil upholding his philanthropic vision. In a landmark judgment on the interpretation of the late Ratan Tata’s will and its codicils the court affirmed that the majority of his undistributed shares would go to the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and Trust. This decision underscores Mr. Tata’s enduring commitment to philanthropy reported by The Hindu. “Before considering the submissions made before this court in the backdrop of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties it would be appropriate to first refer to the jurisdiction exercised by this court under Rule 238 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980 while considering such originating summons” the court said adding that in the case of Charu K. Mehta Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust “the Division Bench of this Court elaborately discussed the said aspect of the matter by specifically referring to Rules 238 to 258 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980” the court said in the order passed on June 16 2025. ‘’After referring to earlier judgments in the context of the said Rules it was reiterated that the Originating Summons before the Judge in chambers contemplated a summary procedure and once the Originating Summons are accepted the plaint is numbered as Ordinary Suit before the Court. It was held that the Originating Summons is an appropriate remedy where a question of interpretation arises that does not require appreciation of evidence or determination of disputed complex factual matrix. It was further laid down that if the Judge considering the matter finds that the relief sought cannot be conveniently and properly considered in an Originating Summons the same may be dismissed and the parties be referred to a suit in the ordinary course” the court said in the judgment.