The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by HDFC Bank CEO and Managing Director Sashidhar Jagdishan seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which operates the renowned Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan noted that the matter is already scheduled for hearing before the Bombay High Court on July 14, and stated it would be inappropriate for the apex court to intervene at this stage. “We are not inclined to entertain the matter. We will not apply our mind to the merits. If the matter is not heard on 14th, you come back,” the bench remarked.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Jagdishan, argued that the FIR was frivolous and part of a private dispute among trustees. He expressed concern over repeated recusals by Bombay High Court judges, which had delayed proceedings. Rohatgi also sought interim protection from arrest, which the Supreme Court declined to grant.
The FIR, registered at Bandra police station following a magistrate’s directive under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), accuses Jagdishan of cheating and criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The Trust alleges that Jagdishan accepted a ₹2.05 crore bribe in exchange for financial advice that allegedly enabled the Chetan Mehta Group to retain undue control over the Trust’s governance.
In a public statement, the Trust described the payment as part of a broader conspiracy to “loot” the organization and manipulate its decision-making processes. It has also filed a petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a CBI investigation into the matter. HDFC Bank has categorically denied the allegations, calling them malicious and baseless. The bank claims the FIR is an attempt to derail recovery proceedings against long-standing loan defaulters, including members of the Mehta family. It has vowed to pursue legal remedies to protect its reputation and interests.
As the case now awaits its next hearing in the Bombay High Court, the controversy continues to draw attention to the intersection of corporate governance, legal accountability, and charitable trust management.
