HDFC Bank CEO moves Bombay High Court over FIR by Lilavati Trust
HDFC Bank's Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sashidhar Jagdishan has moved the Bombay High Court, seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by Prashant Mehta, a permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which oversees Lilavati Hospital. The FIR accused him of accepting a sum of ₹2.05 crore as a bribe to help the Chetan Mehta Group allegedly retain illegal control of the charitable trust.
In his petition, Mr. Jagdishan has denied all allegations, terming the complaint as 'false and motivated,' and arguing that the FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law intended to malign his reputation.
When the petition came up for hearing on Wednesday (June 18, 2025) before a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, both the judges recused themselves from hearing the case.
Later in the day, the case was mentioned before another Division Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shyam Chandak, but Justice Kotwal recused from hearing the matter.
The matter will now be reassigned to a new Bench by an administrative order of the Chief Justice and will be heard in due course of time.
The FIR lodged earlier this month on June 6, with the Bandra Police Station under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 420 (cheating) under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Trust through its authorised representative Prashant Mehta.
The FIR was filed pursuant to an order of a Magistrate court at Bandra, following the Trust's application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A June 9 statement by the Trust claimed that the purported payment was part of a wider plan to loot the Trust and that the banker and his family enjoyed free medical treatment at the hospital.
The Trust has further alleged that it has placed deposits and investments worth ₹ 48 crore with HDFC Bank since the financial year 2022, suggesting a conflict of interest. It also accused Mr. Jagdishan of offering ₹ 1.5 crore under the pretext of corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds, allegedly, to destroy and forge evidence in an internal Trust dispute.
The Trust has also alleged that despite judicial findings and multiple complaints, HDFC Bank failed to act, violating Section 166 of the Companies Act and SEBI governance mandates.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing Mr. Jagdishan, denied all the allegations and called them 'outrageous' and 'preposterous'.
'One of the most absurd allegations was that he received money from trustees. The absurdity of the allegation is that he allegedly received ₹2 crore to harass HDFC Bank borrowers,' Mr. Desai submitted.
The FIR is a retaliatory measure stemming from HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings against Splendour Gems Limited — a company owned by the Mehta family — which has defaulted on loans amounting to ₹ 65.22 crore in loans as of May 31, he said. 'These actions follow recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against a company owned by the father of one of the trustees. They now use the façade of Lilavati Trust to take action against us,' Mr. Desai said.
The petition read that the FIR is liable to be quashed by the High Court as it is an abuse of the legal process, and the allegations made in the FIR are wholly motivated by mala fide intentions and do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner.
It also said that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever to the commission of the alleged offences, if any, and in fact the FIR is nothing but a malicious retaliation in relation to the ongoing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank.
'The impugned order also ought to be quashed and set aside on the grounds that the impugned order is erroneous, bad in law as it has been passed in disregard to the mandatory requirements under Section 175 (3) of BNSS that should have been followed by the complainant.'
The petition claimed that the present case against Mr. Jagdishan who has been recognised for his work by numerous awards and accolades, is nothing but a malicious attempt to scathe his name and reputation and of HDFC Bank that plays a significant role in the financial sphere of the country. 'Such criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the bank are the larger scheme of the debtors to scuttle away from paying the debt owned.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'No Leniency In POCSO Cases': Chhattisgarh HC Upholds 20-Year Jail Term For Minor's Gangrape
Last Updated: Citing SC precedents, the high court said a rape survivor's statement, especially sexual assault cases concerning children, need not be corroborated if it inspires confidence The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction and 20-year jail term to three men for the gangrape of a 13-year-old girl during a wedding celebration in Kondagaon district. The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed their appeals, observing that the trial court had rightly convicted them under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 'Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act," the division bench wrote in a headnote to the judgment. The incident took place on April 26, 2019, when the girl and her friend stepped out of a crowded wedding venue in Makdi village to go to a nearby field. The survivor testified that four men dragged her away and took turns to rape her while keeping her friend restrained. She later identified the accused – residents of nearby villages. She had seen their faces in the light from their mobile phones, and was also helped by residents of Ambal village from where the groom's party was visiting. The day after the crime, she lodged a complaint with the Kondagaon police and, based on her statement, a case was registered under Sections 376D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with relevant sections of the POCSO Act. The minor's testimony was consistent and detailed. She clearly described the attack and identified the accused. Her medical report showed a torn hymen and vaginal injuries. Forensic tests determined semen stains on her underwear and the undergarments of the accused. Doctors confirmed that all three accused were capable of sexual activity and fresh injuries were noted on two of them. The defence, however, argued that the case was built solely from the girl's version, pointing to alleged contradictions and claiming false implication. It questioned the absence of immediate corroboration, lack of injuries on the accused, and challenged the method used to determine the girl's age. But the court was not convinced by these arguments. Referring to school admission records, the court held that the girl was 13 years old at the time of the incident, with the case attracting the POCSO provisions. The defence had offered no proof to rebut this. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the high court said a rape survivor's statement, especially sexual assault cases concerning children, need not be corroborated if it inspires confidence. 'A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred," the court observed. It added: 'She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated." Calling such crimes 'a degradation not only of the body but also of the soul", the court said there was no reason to interfere with the lower court's findings. The conviction is supported by consistent eyewitness testimony, medical findings, forensic confirmation, and absence of any credible defence, the bench said while dismissing the appeals. First Published: June 19, 2025, 23:24 IST
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Tripura man sentenced to 20 years in jail for raping minor stepdaughter
A Tripura court on Wednesday handed out 20 years' imprisonment to a man who raped his minor stepdaughter. He was also ordered to pay a penalty of Rs 5,000, failing which he will have to serve an additional jail term of two months. Government counsel Ashmita Banik said the incident occurred in West Tripura district in August 2023. 'Though her mother was supposed to support her in this condition, she fled with her (rape-survivor's) stepfather. The minor's elder sister, who lives in South Tripura district, came to know about the incident and filed a complaint,' said the counsel. The minor rape survivor is living at a shelter home. Her stepfather was found guilty by the court under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act and Indian Penal Code sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation). The court examined 19 witnesses during the trial. The court also ordered that the rape survivor be paid compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Oil firm detects theft from pipeline, lodges FIR in Buxar
Buxar: Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) officials on Thursday lodged an FIR against unidentified persons for oil theft from the IOC's Barauni-Kanpur pipeline at Nuawan village under Krishna Brahm police station area of Buxar district. Krishna Brahm SHO Chanchal Kumar said, "We have received a complaint regarding the oil theft and initiated an investigation into the matter. Charges have been filed under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, Explosives Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code." According to Indian Oil engineer, Vishal Kumar, the illegal activity came to light during a routine inspection on June 16 around 7.30am. Security guard Pramod Kumar observed signs of fresh excavation and disturbed soil above the pipeline, and promptly alerted the authorities. A joint team from Indian Oil and the local police reached the spot and found that a 2-inch illegal valve had been installed on the pipeline for stealing oil, resulting in the leakage. "This act not only damaged national infrastructure, but also posed a serious safety hazard due to the highly flammable nature of the product," said Kumar, adding that the disruption in supply triggered a temporary fuel crisis in the surrounding areas.
