In an unusual sequence of events, three separate benches of the Bombay High Court have recused themselves from hearing a petition filed by HDFC Bank’s Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan seeking to quash an FIR alleging cheating and fraud. The FIR was filed on the basis of a complaint by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which manages Mumbai’s renowned Lilavati Hospital.
The matter has so far been placed before three different benches. The first bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh Patil saw Justice Patil recuse himself. The case was then listed before Justice Sarang Kotwal’s bench, which also stepped away. Most recently, a bench comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain recused itself on Thursday, after Justice Jain voluntarily disclosed his shareholding in HDFC Bank. While Jagdishan’s counsel, senior advocate Amit Desai, did not object, the Trust’s counsel Niteen Pradhan raised an objection, leading to the bench’s withdrawal from the matter.
Acknowledging the repeated recusals, the bench commented humorously that perhaps the number of benches and judicial strength should be increased to handle such situations.
Jagdishan is facing serious allegations from the Trust, which claims he accepted a bribe of ₹2.05 crore under the guise of providing financial advisory services. The complaint alleges that the payment was in fact part of a conspiracy to help the Chetan Mehta Group retain undue and illegal control over the Trust’s governance, thereby compromising the autonomy of the charitable institution.
The FIR against the bank executive was registered at the Bandra police station following an order by a local magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The charges invoked include cheating and criminal breach of trust, including by a public servant.
The Lilavati Trust has also sought a CBI probe into the matter, alleging that the ₹2.05 crore payment was just one component of a broader scheme to undermine the Trust’s decision-making in favour of private interests.
The matter will now be listed before another bench for further hearing.
