At the centre of the dispute is Mistry's contention that neither the original Will nor the trust deed authorises the automatic termination of a trustee's appointment after three years. He has also challenged the trust's attempt to dispute his standing in the proceedings, maintaining that his name remains recorded in the Register of Public Trusts. The rejoinder, filed in Change Report No. 678 of 2026, responds to the trust's submission dated October 14, 2026, affirmed by Noel Tata. It raises questions about the legal validity of the reported change in trusteeship and calls for the rejection of the trust's preliminary objections. Mistry has disputed the trust's position that his trusteeship automatically came to an end on October 28, 2025, following the completion of a three-year term. According to his submissions, neither the Will dated March 20, 1913, nor the trust deed dated December 7, 1923, specifies a fixed tenure for trustees. He has argued that the documents also contain no provision under which an appointment automatically terminates after three years. On this basis, Mistry has challenged the legality of treating his trusteeship as having expired and subsequently reporting a change in the trust's composition. He has also rejected the suggestion that his letter dated November 4, 2025, amounted to an acceptance of the termination. Mistry contends that the communication was sent after the institution had already considered his trusteeship to have ended and therefore cannot be interpreted as a surrender of his legal rights. Trust Deed's Residence Clause At The Centre Of Eligibility Dispute Another major aspect of the rejoinder concerns Clause 18 of the trust deed, which Mistry says sets out the relevant residential qualification for trustees. The clause requires a trustee to be a “permanent resident of some place in the Bombay Presidency or Navsari”. Mistry has argued that this requirement should not be conflated with Indian citizenship or Indian tax residency. According to his interpretation, the Will, its Codicil and the trust deed do not expressly make either Indian citizenship or Indian tax residency a prerequisite for holding the position. He has further maintained that the trust must interpret and enforce its governing provisions consistently rather than introduce additional eligibility conditions that are not contained in the documents. While contesting the objections raised against him, Mistry has also turned the eligibility argument towards Noel Tata, questioning his alleged Irish citizenship, UAE Golden Visa and tax residency in the United Arab Emirates. In his rejoinder, Mistry has sought an affidavit from Noel Tata clarifying his citizenship when he was appointed as a trustee, the circumstances surrounding the alleged change in citizenship and his present tax residency. He has also sought details about whether Noel was an Indian or Irish citizen at the time of his appointment and whether he had previously held a Swiss passport while also possessing an Indian passport. Mistry argues that the institution cannot apply citizenship and overseas residency considerations selectively.