3 Bombay High Judges Recuse from HDFC MD&CEO's Case Against Lilavati Trust FIR; 6 More Judges Unlikely to Hear

Sahyaja MS (Bar and Bench) 26 June 2025

Economy & Nation

Three Bombay High Court judges have recused themselves from hearing a plea filed by HDFC Bank's managing director and chief executive officer (MD&CEO) Sashidhar Jagdishan to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against him on a complaint by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.

According to the complaint filed by the Trust, which owns and manages the prominent Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai, Jagdishan allegedly accepted a bribe of 2.05 crore in exchange for providing financial advice to help the Chetan Mehta Group retain illegal and undue control over the Trust’s governance.

The Trust has accused Jagdishan of misusing his position as the head of a leading private bank to interfere in the internal affairs of a charitable organisation.

The matter was first listed before a Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh Patil on June 18. However, Justice Patil recused himself from hearing the matter. Later that day, it was mentioned before a bench led by Justice Sarang Kotwal, who also recused.

Subsequently, the matter was listed before the Bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain on Thursday.

However, Justice Jain disclosed that he held shares in HDFC Bank. Upon objection from the counsel for Prashant Mehta, the Trust's authorised representative, Justice Jain too recused from the matter.

According to sources quoting from an administrative order passed by chief justice Alok Aradhe, over the years, six judges, including justice Revati Mohite-Dere, justice Girish Kulkarni, justice Burgess Colabawalla, justice Riyaz Chagla, justice Sharmila Deshmukh and justice Arif Doctor have recused from hearing cases related to Lilavati Hospital.

During Thursday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Jagdishan, strongly objected to the pattern of recusal of judges and accused the Trust of "forum shopping."

He argued that merely holding shares in a publicly listed company should not by itself be a ground for recusal and that it is ultimately for the judges to decide whether they should hear a matter or not.

Expressing concern over the repeated recusals, Desai said on a lighter note:

“The Collegium should introduce a new criterion for appointing judges in Bombay: select only those who haven’t worked with Lilavati.”

The FIR filed at Bandra Police Station was registered following an order by a Bandra magistrate court under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, based on an application moved by the Trust through Mehta.

The FIR invokes serious charges under the Indian Penal Code including Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) and 420 (cheating).

In a detailed public statement issued earlier this month, the Trust alleged that the 2.05 crore payment was part of a larger conspiracy to “loot” the Trust and manipulate its decision-making processes in favour of the Chetan Mehta Group.

The Trust has also filed a petition before the High Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.

It has also initiated a Rs1,000 crore civil defamation suit and a separate criminal defamation complaint against Jagdishan and HDFC Bank. This matter is scheduled to be heard on July 18 by the Girgaon magistrate court.

Courtesy: Bar & Bench

Comments