Dispute in Lilavati trust: HC issues notice to ex-CP, trustee calls his challenge to removal ‘mockery’ of law

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday issued a notice to former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh for allegedly making defamatory statements against the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre in Bandra, and its trustees.

Lilavati hospital (HT Photo)
Lilavati hospital (HT Photo)

The trust had approached the court seeking urgent injunctive reliefs and penalty for defamation against Singh, who made the alleged statements after being removed as executive director of Lilavati Hospital on February 5.

Singh is at the centre of the latest fallout between trustees of the LKMMT, as he and permanent trustee Rajesh Mehta are pitted against the latter’s brothers and permanent trustees Prashant and Rajiv Mehta.

Prashant and Rajiv Mehta have accused Rajesh Mehta, Singh and five former employees of the hospital of forgery, criminal intimidation, embezzlement of funds to the tune of 100 crore, and other offences. Both sides have also accused each other of forging the minutes of a meeting held in 2024 to illegally usurp control of the LKMMT, resulting in a slew of complaints and counter-complaints.

When the LMKKT’s plea in the Bombay High Court seeking urgent injunctive reliefs against Singh came up for hearing on Friday, senior advocate Ashish Kamat, appearing for the trust, submitted that Singh circulated two emails dated February 2, 2026, and later gave interviews to three publications, containing “vile statements and serious insinuations” which had sullied the reputation and goodwill of the Trust.

A single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav said statements by Singh about the LMKKT and its trustees appeared to have been made “to tarnish their reputation in public and to humiliate them in the eyes of the society”. The court issued a notice to Singh, saying such statements “may not be made any further by him”. It also said that he was free to place his responses on record within a week via a reply affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on February 25.

On Wednesday, the high court had issued notices to 10 trustees of the LKMMT, acting on a plea by Rajesh Mehta who was removed as permanent trustee on January 16. In his plea, Rajesh Mehta challenged his removal, accused ten trustees of passing two “illegal” resolutions” which subjected him to humiliation, and sought a permanent injunction restraining the trustees from acting on the resolutions. He also sought 10 crore as compensation.

Also on Wednesday, Prashant Mehta approached the Charity Commissioner, saying Singh had no locus standi to contest his removal as executive director before the authority as he was a former employee of the trust, and not a trustee or beneficiary. Singh, a retired IPS officer, had “sought to misuse and abuse his past position, influence and perceived authority to threaten, harass and defame the trustees”, Prashant Mehta alleged.

Singh’s challenge to his removal should be dismissed as it is contrary to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and a “mockery and an affront” to the law, he stated in his application.

As HT reported on February 13, Singh had approached the Charity Commissioner a day earlier, claiming he was removed as executive director of the hospital after he flagged malpractices in the LKMMT, including forgery and misappropriation of funds, via an email to the trust chairperson Charu Mehta on February 2, and a criminal complaint filed at the Bandra police station on February 5.

According to Singh’s application, resolutions were passed by Rajiv and Prashant Mehta and other LKMMT trustees under the garb of majority to silence Rajesh Mehta, who questioned “financial misconduct” in the trust, and accused Rajiv and Prashant Mehta and others of fraudulently undervaluing a trust property in Mira Road worth 50 crore and trying to sell it for 3 crore although a higher offer of 6.50 crore was on record. Singh claimed that he was removed out of vengeance when, in fact, he was a whistleblower.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *