After weeks of delays due to a series of judicial recusals, the Bombay High Court on Monday finally heard HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan’s petition seeking to quash a bribery case filed against him by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs Mumbai’s renowned Lilavati Hospital.
A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and N.R. Borkar took up the plea following the recusal of four different judges since mid-June. During the hearing, Mumbai Police informed the court that the investigation was at a “crucial stage,” but assured that no summons would be issued to Jagdishan at this time.
Meanwhile, the Lilavati Trust has filed a separate petition requesting the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging police inaction in the case. The trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting ₹2.05 crore in kickbacks in exchange for offering financial advice that allegedly helped former trustees, including Chetan Mehta, retain illegal control over the trust.
The FIR was registered on May 29, following a magistrate’s order, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. Jagdishan has denied any wrongdoing, calling the FIR “baseless and malicious,” and approached the high court to seek its quashing.
However, judicial recusals stalled proceedings for nearly a month. On June 18, Justice Rajesh Patil recused himself from the bench hearing the matter, with Justice Ajey Gadkari noting, “My brother does not take up matters relating to HDFC.” Subsequently, Justice Sarang Kotwal also recused himself without citing reasons.
On June 26, Justice Jitendra Jain stepped aside after disclosing that he held shares in HDFC Bank. Advocate Nitin Pradhan, representing the trust, raised objections, prompting Jain’s recusal. Again, on July 9, Justice Gautam Ankhad recused himself from a new bench without offering any explanation.
With no resolution in sight, Jagdishan approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the delays in the Bombay High Court were affecting his personal and professional reputation. The apex court, however, declined to intervene, noting the matter was already listed before the high court.
The Bombay High Court is now scheduled to hear the case again on July 23.
