The company CEO Sashidhar 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. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters
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.”
Published – June 19, 2025 10:02 am IST
Source link