₹65 crore recovery case at centre of dispute
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed a bribery case filed against Sashidhar Jagdishan, Managing Director and CEO of HDFC Bank, terming the complaint a “counterblast” to the bank’s recovery proceedings over dues exceeding ₹65 crore.
A division bench comprising Justices M S Karnik and N R Borkar observed that financial institutions are obligated to initiate recovery proceedings and found no merit in the allegations made by the complainant.
“The complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the recovery proceedings initiated, and the materials on record do not justify an investigation,” the court said.
Court flags internal disputes within trust
The case was filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the Lilavati Hospital.
The court noted that the dispute appeared to stem from deep internal rifts between former and current trustees.
The bench pointed to “serious acrimony, distrust and strained relations” within the Trust, adding that the fallout had impacted the bank official.
FIR termed abuse of legal process
While quashing the FIR, the High Court ruled that continuing the case would amount to an “abuse of the process of court” and that the complaint lacked bona fide intent.
The bench also rejected claims that the Trust’s founder, Kishore Mehta, died in 2024 due to pressure from the bank, stating that bank officials could not be held responsible.
Allegations linked to ₹65 crore loan recovery
The case is tied to HDFC Bank’s recovery action against Splendour Gems Ltd for outstanding dues of ₹65.22 crore.
The Trust, through its representative Prashant Mehta, alleged that a diary recovered during loan proceedings indicated payments of ₹2.05 crore to Jagdishan, purportedly on the directions of Chetan Mehta.
Based on a magistrate’s order, police had registered an FIR on May 31, 2025, under provisions related to criminal breach of trust and cheating.
CEO calls case fallout of recovery action
In his plea, Jagdishan argued that the allegations were a direct consequence of long-standing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by the bank against the promoters.
He denied all charges, stating that the complaint was motivated and linked to disputes over control of the Trust.
The High Court noted that recovery proceedings are ongoing before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that substantial dues remain unpaid.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
