Supreme Court Declines Interim Protection To HDFC Bank CEO In Lilavati Trust FIR

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Jagdishan, urgently mentioned the matter before the Court, seeking interim protection from coercive action till the High Court hears his plea.

“I am the MD of a reputed bank. I have nothing to do with this. A frivolous FIR is lodged because of a personal dispute among trustees. The bank is suffering, and I am personally being harassed,” Rohatgi submitted, pointing out that for three weeks his plea could not be heard as several High Court benches had recused.

However, opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the complainant Trust, objected to the Supreme Court’s intervention, stating that the case was listed in the Bombay High Court on July 14 by consent of the parties.

The Court observed, “We sympathise with your situation. We understand that several benches recused, and your petition was listed repeatedly but could not be heard. However, now that it is listed, it would be improper for us to intervene.”

Justice Narasimha advised Rohatgi to approach the Bombay High Court for relief, remarking, “Your case is listed on the 14th. Go ahead. What should we do now? Argue all these points before the High Court. If you are not heard then, come back to us.”

Rohatgi persisted, urging the Court to at least record an observation ensuring the matter is heard as scheduled. Responding, the Bench said, “We hope and trust that the matter will be taken up on July 14. The case was earlier listed on June 18, 20, 25 and 26. We have noted that.”

Conclusively, the Court ordered, "We are not inclined to hear the plea."

Previously 

On July 3, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Jagdishan had mentioned the plea before the Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice K Vinod Chandran seeking urgent listing in light of repeated adjournments before the Bombay High Court.

Rohatgi had submitted that three different benches of the Bombay High Court had recused from hearing the matter, causing undue delays. “A frivolous FIR has been lodged against the MD and the Bank, by trustees of the Lilavati Hospital, who are already litigating against another group of trustees. The Bank has to recover money from them. To twist the Bank’s arm, they have lodged an FIR through a Magistrate against the MD,” Rohatgi argued.

He had further told the Court that the next date before the High Court is tentatively listed for July 14, and in the meantime, the Bank’s operations are suffering.

Background

The FIR, filed at Mumbai’s Bandra Police Station, stems from an application by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which manages the renowned Lilavati Hospital. The Trust alleged that Jagdishan accepted a bribe of Rs. 2.05 crore for providing financial advice that allegedly helped the Chetan Mehta Group retain undue control over the hospital’s governance.

The Trust accused Jagdishan of abusing his position as the head of a leading private bank to interfere in the internal affairs of a charitable trust. Following an application by the Trust, the Bandra Magistrate ordered registration of the FIR under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Jagdishan has been booked under serious charges including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal breach of trust by a public servant.

The matter forms part of a larger dispute among the trustees of Lilavati Hospital, who have been engaged in long-standing litigation over the Trust’s management and finances. The HDFC Bank’s involvement allegedly arose from its financial dealings with one faction of the trustees.

Jagdishan’s plea before the Supreme Court seeks quashing of the FIR, contending that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process aimed at pressuring the Bank in its recovery proceedings.

Case Title: Sasidhar Jagdishan v. State of Maharashtra [SLP(Crl) No. 9602/2025; Diary No. 35161/2025]