MUMBAI: HDFC Bank’s managing director and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him earlier this month in connection with an alleged financial and administrative scandal involving the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (LKMM Trust), which manages the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra West.
₹2.05 crore bribery FIR filed by Lilavati Trust” title=”HDFC Bank CEO moves HC to quash ₹2.05 crore bribery FIR filed by Lilavati Trust” />The FIR, registered on May 31, stems from a complaint by Prashant Mehta, a trustee of the Lilavati Trust, who alleged that Jagdishan accepted ₹2.05 crore in bribes between March 2022 and June 2023 to aid a group of erstwhile trustees—led by Chetan Mehta—to illegally retain control of the trust. The complaint also alleged a prolonged campaign of harassment against Mehta’s father, Kishor Mehta, whose business was entangled in a loan dispute with HDFC Bank. Kishor Mehta died on May 20, 2024, allegedly after enduring sustained mental and emotional distress.
The FIR, ordered by a Bandra magistrate on May 29, invoked serious charges under sections 406, 409 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 175(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It alleges that diary entries and cash register photocopies unearthed by Prashant Mehta show systematic misuse of trust funds, including the ₹2.05 crore allegedly paid to Jagdishan.
In his plea before the High Court, Jagdishan has strongly denied all allegations, calling the FIR “malicious and vindictive” and accusing the complainant of misusing the name of the Lilavati Trust to settle personal scores. Represented by senior advocate Amit Desai, Jagdishan argued that the complaint is a retaliatory response to recovery proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank against Splendour Gems Ltd, a company owned by the Mehta family, which had defaulted on loans amounting to ₹65.22 crore.
Desai contended that there is no evidence linking Jagdishan to the alleged transactions beyond unverifiable diary entries, and criticised the magistrate’s order as flawed. “Despite the absence of corroborative documents, and the complainant’s failure to submit additional evidence, the magistrate still ordered a police investigation,” Jagdishan’s petition stated, adding that proceeding on the basis of “selective cash records and unauthenticated diary entries” was legally untenable.
The plea has also sought a stay on further proceedings, including any coercive action or filing of a chargesheet, arguing that the HDFC chief could suffer “grave loss and irreparable injury” if the FIR is not quashed.
When the petition came up for hearing before a bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil, Justice Patil recused himself. The matter was then mentioned before Justice Sarang V Kotwal, who also recused himself citing prior association with one of the trustees. The matter will now be reassigned to a new bench.
Meanwhile, the Bandra police have also registered a separate FIR on May 31 against Chetan Mehta, M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd, and others for alleged embezzlement of ₹2.25 crore from the trust. Accused parties in that case, including Phoenix ARC, Keki Elavia and Venkatu Srinivasan, have also approached the High Court seeking quashing of the embezzlement FIR.
The High Court is expected to hear all related pleas in due course.