HDFC Bank MD Sashidhar Jagdishan challenges FIR by Lilavati Trust, calling it a misuse of criminal law.
Bombay HC questions the validity of the complaint and adjourns hearing to next Wednesday.
Mumbai: Today, on July 23, the Bombay High Court is presently hearing a writ petition (WP/3205/2025) filed by HDFC Bank’s Managing Director and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan, who is challenging a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, the entity managing Mumbai’s Lilavati Hospital.
The matter is being heard by a division bench comprising Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice N. R. Borkar.
Senior Advocate Desai, representing Jagdishan, began by presenting the Magistrate’s order and the FIR, raising concerns about the conduct of the Trust post-January 2024.
He claimed that the Trust has initiated multiple legal actions to avoid settling its financial dues.
He said,
“When we look at the conduct of the Trust after January 2024 they have initiated various proceedings only to scuttle the dues.”
He further pointed out that the main parties in the dispute are Jagdishan and the Bandra Police, stating,
“You’ve already noted the key parties involved which is Jagdishan and the Bandra police.”
In response, the Court asked,
“But how does this show their intention?”
Desai argued that the actions of the Trust were in bad faith.
“It reflects a clear bad faith,”
he stated. He alleged that the allegations were linked to recovery actions started against Kishore Mehta, father of the current trustee.
He added,
“All these allegations are being connected only because we started recovery proceedings against Kishore Mehta, who is the father of the present trustee.”
Further defending Jagdishan, Desai highlighted that the alleged harassment began in 2017, long before Jagdishan joined the Trust board.
“They claim the alleged harassment began in 2017, at a time when Shashidharan wasn’t even on the board.”
He also pointed out that the same Magistrate had earlier dismissed the same complaint and that the Trust had then approached various authorities like the Finance Ministry and the Minority Commission with similar allegations.
“The same Magistrate who has now passed the impugned order had earlier dismissed their complaint. After that, they went on to approach the Finance Ministry and even the Minority Commission with similar complaints.”
In response to a court query, Desai said,
“Yes the HC had clearly observed that the complaint before the Commission was filed only to obstruct the recovery process.”
He then informed the court that the current FIR originated from a complaint filed by the Trust before the Magistrate, even though the trustee acting on behalf of the Trust had received Power of Attorney before officially becoming a trustee.
“The Trust filed a complaint before the Magistrate leading to this FIR. They authorized trustee Mehta to act through a Power of Attorney given before he even became a trustee.”
Desai highlighted that the complaint accused Jagdishan of wrongdoing between 2006 and 2013, a period when he was not associated with the Trust. He stated,
“The allegation claims that between 2006–2013, former trustees along with Shashidharan committed breach of trust, even though he wasn’t on the board then.”
He stressed how such sweeping and unsubstantiated claims are misusing criminal courts.
“This shows how sweeping accusations are being made and criminal courts are being misused like PIL forums.”
When the bench asked him to come to the main issue, Desai responded,
“Yes My lords I will take you through the issue.”
Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, representing Phoenix ARC, which also appears to be dragged into the matter, stepped in to be heard, stating,
“Same complaint by the same people and the same allegations. I also need to be heard Your Lordships. My facts are slightly different.”
The Court assured him,
“We will hear you separately.”
Desai resumed and demanded a stay on the investigation, asserting that the witnesses listed had no direct knowledge.
“I just want to show the position of law. I demand for a stay of investigation.”
He elaborated,
“The witnesses are people who are not even on the board and have no knowledge of the matter. At one point they say that the originals are destroyed and at one point they say they are available.”
Desai questioned the reliability of evidence, saying,
“Any date you put the man is travelling abroad or in any city and then they say that the money has been received. Where is the entry?”
He argued that the Magistrate could have asked for original documents, but the Trust has given contradictory statements about the documents’ availability.
“The magistrate would have said that produce the documents so the argument that has been taken is that the documents are destroyed. What evidence has been taken in consideration if the documents are destroyed. In the application they say they are available.”
Taking the court through the legal points, Desai added,
“If you can see the affidavit. They have converted the trust into their personal property and using it to settle scores.”
He also raised concerns over the misuse of Section 156(3) of the CrPC, stating,
“Because of the misuse of 156 (3) it has been said by the court to make it clear the para you believe to be true the para are true to your knowledge and who has given you all these information.”
The Court then directed Desai to address the core complaint.
“Please address the complaint. Is there any other complaint? We will ask the Trust.”
Desai cited several Supreme Court rulings, saying that before an FIR is directed under Section 156(3), the Magistrate must verify the complaint’s merit.
He said,
“This is the broader context cases like Priyanka’s led the Court to interpret the law more widely.”
He pointed out inconsistencies regarding Jagdishan’s location during the period of alleged incidents:
“There is a serious concern about the diary of the act. On most of the days he is not even in the city and they are saying that he took the money or the money was delivered to him.”
When the counsel for the respondent stated that the investigation was still ongoing, the Court responded,
“You may do it if you cross the threshold of a proper complaint.”
The Court further observed,
“We will deal with the merits later. First, how do you answer the preliminary objections?”
The respondent’s lawyer replied,
“We haven’t received all the documents yet.”
The Court responded firmly,
“The investigation is secondary. If the very basis of the complaint falls apart, how can the investigation continue? At this stage, we need clarity on that point.”
Senior Advocate Abad Ponda, appearing for the Trust, countered that the procedure had been properly followed under the law.
He said,
“Under Section 175(3) BNSS, two affidavits are needed. Factually our complaint sought FIR registration and the application clearly states our prayer. We had also approached the Investigating Officer in time Bandra Police took no action till April so all requirements were met.”
Responding to the allegations about the Power of Attorney, Ponda said,
“The claim that the Power of Attorney was invalid is misplaced the law doesn’t demand that only one particular individual must initiate proceedings and this isn’t a matrimonial matter or anything similar.”
He closed his argument by asserting that procedural irregularities do not equate to denial of justice.
“Failure of justice is much more than irregularity of procedure and miscarriage of law. Order under 156 (3) cannot cause any irreparable injury that will lead to quash of investigation. You have to first argue and demonstrate failure of justice.”
The Court then decided to adjourn the hearing.
“We will hear it tomorrow,”
it said.
However, a counsel informed the Court,
“I am in the SC tomorrow.”
Hence, the matter is now listed for next Wednesday at 4:00 PM.
Background Of The Case
The famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai, run by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, on June 24 filed a legal petition in the Bombay High Court. They are asking for the investigation against HDFC Bank MD and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan, to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Trust has made a serious allegation that Sashidhar Jagdishan took Rs 2.05 crore as a bribe. They claim this money was given to help some ex-trustees keep illegal control over the hospital trust.
The matter first came up on Friday in front of a division bench led by Justice Sarang Kotwal, but he decided not to hear the case and recused himself. Now, the case will be given to a new bench.
This whole issue started after a complaint by Prashant Mehta, one of the trustees. He said that his father, a former trustee, was harassed for a long time over a loan recovery issue related to a company connected to the current trustees. Prashant Mehta also claimed that this constant pressure led to his father’s death.
Case Title:
SASHIDHAR JAGDISHAN VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS WP/3205/2025
Read Online Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on HDFC Bank
