3 Bombay High judges recuse from HDFC CEO's case against Lilavati Trust FIR; 6 more judges unlikely to hear

Three Bombay High Court judges have recused themselves from hearing a plea filed by HDFC Bank CEO and Managing Director Sashidhar Jagdishan to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him on a complaint by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust..According to sources, six more judges are unlikely to hear the matter. The matter was first listed before a Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh Patil on June 18. However, Justice Patil recused himself from hearing the matter. Later that day, it was mentioned before a bench led by Justice Sarang Kotwal, who also recused.Subsequently, the matter was listed before the bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain on Thursday. However, Justice Jain disclosed that he held shares in HDFC Bank. Upon objection from the counsel for Prashant Mehta, the Trust's authorised representative, Justice Jain too recused from the matter.Sources told Bar & Bench that besides these judges, Justices Revati Mohite Dere, GS Kulkarni, Arif Doctor, BP Colabawalla, RI Chagla and Sharmila Deshmukh had recused themselves from hearing various other matters concerning the Lilavati Trust in the past and are unlikely to hear the case..According to the complaint filed by the Trust, which owns and manages the prominent Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai, Jagdishan allegedly accepted a bribe of ₹2.05 crore in exchange for providing financial advice to help the Chetan Mehta Group retain illegal and undue control over the Trust’s governance.The Trust has accused Jagdishan of misusing his position as the head of a leading private bank to interfere in the internal affairs of a charitable organisation..During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Jagdishan, strongly raised his concerns over the recusals and accused the Trust of "forum shopping." He argued that merely holding shares in a publicly listed company should not by itself be a ground for recusal and that it is ultimately for the judges to decide whether they should hear a matter or not.Expressing concern over the repeated recusals, Desai said on a lighter note: “The Collegium should introduce a new criterion for appointing judges in Bombay: select only those who haven’t worked with Lilavati.”.The FIR lodged at Bandra Police Station was registered following an order by a Bandra magistrate court under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, based on an application moved by the Trust through Mehta.The FIR invokes serious charges under the Indian Penal Code including Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) and 420 (cheating)..In a detailed public statement issued earlier this month, the Trust alleged that the ₹2.05 crore payment was part of a larger conspiracy to “loot” the Trust and manipulate its decision-making processes in favour of the Chetan Mehta Group.The Trust has also filed a petition before the High Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.It has also initiated a ₹1,000 crore civil defamation suit and a separate criminal defamation complaint against Jagdishan and HDFC Bank. This matter is scheduled to be heard on July 18 by the Girgaon magistrate court..Along with Desai, Senior Advocate DP Singh and Advocates Himanshu Sinha, Sandip Singhi, Chitra Rentala, Gopalkrishna Shenoy, Ritesh Desai, Kriti Srivastava, Parikshith K, Khyati Mehrotra and Shravani Maddirala, instructed by Trilegal, appeared for Jagdishan.Advocates Niteen Pradhan, Shaheen Pradhan, Monish Bhatia, Rohan Dakshini, Pooja Kothari, Prakhar Parekh and Raghav Dharmadhikari, instructed by Rashmikant & Partners, appeared for Mehta.Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda along with Advocates Kushal Mor, Monish Bhatia, Minal Chandanani, Maumik Shah, Mohd Asim, Jyoti Ghag and Shailesh Prajapati, instructed by Dua Associates, appeared for the Trust.Additional Public Prosecutor Mahalakshmi G appeared for the State..Note: An earlier version of the story said that 10 judges have already recused from the case. The error is regretted.