E-Paper
SC declines interim relief to HDFC MD Sashidhar Jagdishan in Lilavati bribery case
The bench while declining to intervene at this stage, noted that although the matter had seen repeated judicial recusals in the high court, it was now finally listed for hearing
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant any interim protection to HDFC Bank Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan in a bribery case linked to the governance dispute at Mumbai’s Lilavati Hospital, directing him instead to raise all arguments before the Bombay High Court, where his plea to quash the criminal case is scheduled to be heard on July 14.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, while declining to intervene at this stage, noted that although the matter had seen repeated judicial recusals in the high court, it was now finally listed for hearing.
“We are informed that the matter is listed before the Bombay High Court on July 14. In view of this, we are not inclined to entertain this petition,” the court said in its order. It added that Jagdishan’s quashing plea was earlier listed on June 18, 25, and 26, but could not be taken up due to judges recusing themselves. “In this background, we hope and trust that the high court will take up the matter on the designated date.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Jagdishan, sought urgent relief from the Supreme Court, contending that a “frivolous FIR” had been filed to “harass” the bank’s top executive. “I am the MD of the bank and I have nothing to do with the inter se disputes among the trustees of Lilavati. A frivolous FIR has been filed against me. No proceedings should be taken out against me. I am suffering and the bank is suffering,” Rohatgi told the bench. He further expressed apprehensions of coercive action, stating, “The idea is to summon the MD to the police station and create havoc for the bank.”
Also Read: SC to hear on July 4 HDFC Bank MD’s plea against bribery FIR
But the court was not convinced. “You make all these arguments before the high court. It is unfortunate that many judges have recused, but it is listed now on July 14,” the bench retorted.
The apex court’s order came a day after it agreed to hear Jagdishan’s petition seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him by the Mumbai Police on the basis of a complaint filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the prestigious Lilavati Hospital in Bandra.
The FIR, registered by Bandra Police on May 29 following directions from a local magistrate, accuses Jagdishan of accepting ₹2.05 crore in bribes between March 2022 and June 2023 to favour a group led by former trustee Chetan Mehta in internal decisions of the Trust. He has been booked under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant or banker), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trust alleged that Jagdishan misused his position as the head of a prominent private bank to interfere in the internal affairs of the charitable institution, manipulating its governance structure. It claimed the payments were part of a larger conspiracy to marginalise other trustees and gain control of the Trust’s functioning. In a public statement last month, the Trust even sought a CBI probe into the alleged wrongdoing.
The controversy is rooted in a long-standing power tussle within the Trust, and has intensified following the death of Kishor Mehta, one of its founding trustees, in April this year. His son, Prashant Mehta, alleged that Jagdishan’s role in the revival of loan recovery proceedings by HDFC Bank against a Mehta-linked firm, Splendour Gems Ltd, led to mental and physical harassment that contributed to his father’s death. Splendour Gems, formerly Beautiful Diamonds Ltd, had defaulted on loans worth ₹14.74 crore plus interest, with total dues amounting to over ₹65 crore by May 2025.
Jagdishan, in his petition before the high court, has strongly denied the allegations and has termed the FIR “motivated” and “retaliatory,” arguing that it was filed soon after the bank resumed recovery actions against the Mehta family’s firm. He further claimed that the allegations rely entirely on unverified “Xerox copies of selective cash records,” with no supporting witnesses or corroborative evidence. The authenticity of the purported diary that allegedly documented these payments has also been challenged. The petition also contended that the May 29 magistrate’s order directing registration of the FIR was “self-contradictory and flawed,” and that the entire case was aimed at tarnishing his reputation and impeding the functioning of the bank.
However, his efforts to secure a hearing before the Bombay High Court have been marred by repeated judicial recusals. At least five judges are believed to have recused themselves from hearing the case, leading to delays. On June 30, the high court refused to expedite the matter, rejecting the urgency plea and listing it for regular hearing on July 14.
Besides the FIR against Jagdishan, a second complaint filed by the Trust also led to an FIR against Chetan Mehta and others for alleged embezzlement of ₹2.25 crore from the Trust’s funds.
