Bombay High Court hears HDFC CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan’s plea to stay FIR filed by Lilavati Trust, citing “malicious misuse of law”. Court grants no-summons relief till Friday; matter posted for final hearing on July 23.
Mumbai: Today, on July 14, HDFC Bank MD and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan has approached the Bombay High Court to quash an FIR filed against him by the Lilavati Trust. The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices M.S. Karnik and N.R. Borkar.
Interestingly, four judges of the High Court had earlier recused themselves from hearing this matter, which has now landed in front of this new bench.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, who appeared for Sashidhar Jagdishan, informed the court that Jagdishan is the current CEO of HDFC Bank. He explained that Respondent No. 3 is an individual connected with the Lilavati Trust, while Respondent No. 4 is the Trust itself.
He also gave a background of the case, beginning with a loan extended by HDFC Bank in 1995 to a company then known as Beautiful Diamonds, now renamed Splendour Gems. The company was run by the Kishore Mehta family.
Desai further explained,
“A recovery certificate was issued by the DRT in 2004, and efforts to recover the dues have continued since then. A substantial amount is still outstanding.”
He said that the Mehta family has two factions, and the group managing the company until December 2023 was not aligned with Kishore Mehta. But in January 2024, control shifted to Kishore Mehta’s faction.
Once this happened, internal family disputes intensified. Desai informed the court that,
“Following this change, disputes within the family escalated. Prashant Mehta, son of Kishore Mehta, initiated criminal proceedings in January 2024, alleging misappropriation of funds.”
Tragically, Kishore Mehta passed away in May 2024.
Later, in June 2024, the Lilavati Trust filed an application before a magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, accusing Sashidhar Jagdishan and two others of culpable homicide.
They claimed this was committed through what they called “legal warfare.” However, this application was rejected and is now pending in a revision petition.
Desai continued,
“Desai said after their earlier plea was rejected in August 2024, a complaint was filed with the ACB in September alleging Rs 2.05 crore was paid to Jagdishan between 2020–2022. A letter was sent to Bandra Police, but no action followed.”
He added that in April 2025, the trust approached the magistrate under Section 175 of the CrPC, and on May 31, an FIR was finally registered.
The filing of this FIR, Desai argued, led to a smear campaign in the media and before regulatory authorities.
He called it
“a deliberate, malafide attempt to pressure the individual and misuse legal process.”
Desai further stated that the allegations were baseless:
“The allegations are malicious, frivolous and absurd.”
He also brought to the court’s notice that multiple proceedings had already been initiated against other trustees. Referring to a Power of Attorney (POA) document, Desai said,
“They have already commenced multiple proceedings against other trustees. Now please see the power of attorney.”
He pointed out that the POA was signed in 2008 in a personal capacity and not by a trustee.
“At that time, the person granting the POA was not even a trustee. Now, the current application is being filed through that same POA holder,”
raising questions about the validity of the complaint.
The court then asked Desai what kind of relief he was seeking in the case. To this, Desai replied,
“I want admission and interim relief. We want a complete stay on the investigation.”
When the bench asked whether any coercive action was feared, Desai confirmed that such a threat existed.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), however, informed the court that the case had now been handed over to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
He asked for the hearing to be deferred by a week, citing new communication between trust members and a former trustee. He assured the court that a typed copy of this new information would be submitted.
The APP also clarified,
“no summons have been issued yet and a stay would imply prima facie findings.”
Taking note of these submissions, the court ordered that “no summons” should be issued to Sashidhar Jagdishan until Friday.
The bench also directed the parties to submit a chart listing all related petitions—including one filed by an Asset Reconstruction Company and another requesting a CBI investigation—along with a brief note outlining the offences involved.
The court will now hear the matter on July 23, 2025.
Case Title:
Sashidhar Jagdishan vs The State of Maharashtra and Others”. Writ Petition No. 3205 of 2025,
Click Here to Read Our Reports on HDFC Bank
