SC Declines to Quash FIR Against HDFC Bank CEO: Lilavati Trust Alleges Bribery and Fraud in Governance Dispute
- REEDLAW
- Jul 5
- 3 min read
On 4 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain the plea filed by HDFC Bank’s CEO and MD, Sashidhar Jagdishan, seeking to quash a criminal case initiated 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 observed that the matter was already listed for hearing before the Bombay High Court on July 14, and therefore, the Court was not inclined to intervene at this stage. The bench clarified that it would not examine the merits of the case and remarked, "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. We hope and trust that the High Court will take the matter up on the designated date.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Petitioner, argued that the FIR arose out of a private dispute and that the intention was to harass the HDFC Bank head by summoning him to the police station. He further informed the Court that although a petition was filed before the Bombay High Court, three benches had recused themselves from hearing the matter.
The FIR, registered at Bandra Police Station, was ordered by a Bandra magistrate court under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), based on an application moved by the Trust. Jagdishan faces allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The Trust alleges that a bribe of ₹2.05 crore was paid to Jagdishan in exchange for financial advice allegedly aimed at retaining illegal control over the Trust’s governance by the Chetan Mehta Group.
In its public statement, the Trust asserted that the payment formed part of a broader conspiracy to "loot" the Trust and subvert its internal decision-making processes. The complaint accuses Jagdishan of abusing his position as the head of a leading financial institution to meddle in the affairs of a charitable organisation.
In parallel, the Trust has also approached the Bombay High Court seeking a CBI probe into the matter, intensifying the legal battle.
With the Supreme Court declining to intervene and the High Court set to hear the case shortly, the allegations against one of India’s top banking executives may have significant legal and reputational implications, not just for Jagdishan personally but also for the larger banking and charitable governance sectors.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Adv., Mr. Sandip Singhi, Adv., Ms. Chitra Rentala, Adv., Ms. Kriti Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Parikshith Arvindan, Adv., Ms. Shravani Maddirala, Advocate and M/S. Trilegal Advocates on Record, AOR, represented the Petitioner.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abaad Ponda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv., Mr. Dakshesh Vyas, Adv., Mr. Kushal Mor, Adv., Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv., Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Adv., Mr. Mohnish Bhatia, Adv., Ms. Minal Chandnani, Adv., Ms. Manini Roy, Adv., Ms. Shivani Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Piyush Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Harsh Pandya, Adv., Ms. Soumya Dutta, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Ram, Adv., Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv., Mr. Harsh Pandey, Adv., Mr. Karun Mehta, Adv. And Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate, appeared for the Respondents.
To access the full content related to this article, including the complete judgment text, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications, we invite you to subscribe to our premium service.
Click "Subscribe" to unlock these exclusive legal resources.
If you are already a subscriber, please explore these resources by clicking the following citation/link.
Comments