HDFC Bank CEO moves Bombay HC to quash FIR based on Lilavati Trust’s complaint over ‘Rs 2 crore bribe’
HDFC Bank’s CEO and Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, has moved the Bombay High Court to quash an FIR. The complaint comes from the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which manages Mumbai’s Lilavati Hospital. The Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a ₹2.05 crore bribe to influence internal matters.
This case raises concerns about corporate ethics, legal strategy, and family disputes in high-profile trusts and banks.
What the FIR Claims
The FIR accuses Jagdishan of taking a bribe between March 2022 and June 2023. According to the complaint, businessman Chetan Mehta’s group allegedly paid the amount to retain control over the Trust. The Trust alleges the money was paid as disguised fees for financial advice.
The complaint includes copies of handwritten diaries and cash registers as evidence. The Trust also accuses Jagdishan of receiving free hospital treatment for family members. It says he used ₹1.5 crore in corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds to erase evidence.
The FIR further claims the Trust deposited ₹48 crore in HDFC Bank during this period. The Trust believes this shows Jagdishan’s strong influence over their operations.
Jagdishan’s Defense
Jagdishan denies all allegations. He says the FIR is retaliation for legal action that HDFC Bank took against Splendour Gems Ltd, a company tied to Chetan Mehta. Splendour Gems reportedly defaulted on a ₹65.22 crore loan. HDFC Bank began recovery efforts, which allegedly led to the FIR.
Through his legal counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Desai, Jagdishan calls the FIR malicious and unfounded. He argues that the so-called evidence lacks credibility. The diary entries and registers, he says, have no supporting documents.
Jagdishan says the complaint is based on a family feud within the Lilavati Trust. He adds that the allegations aim to discredit the bank’s leadership.
Legal Grounds in the Petition
The FIR was filed on May 31, 2025, after a Bandra magistrate’s order on May 29. It includes charges under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the IPC and Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
Jagdishan’s petition requests the High Court to quash the FIR. He also seeks interim protection from arrest and other coercive actions until the matter is resolved. His legal team argues that the magistrate issued the FIR without examining the lack of hard evidence.
High Court Recusals
The case has faced several delays due to judicial recusals. Initially, Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil heard the petition. They later recused themselves without stating specific reasons. A second bench of Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam Chandak also stepped aside. Justice Kotwal cited a past connection with a Trust member.
The matter now awaits reassignment to a new bench by the High Court. Jagdishan’s request for interim relief remains pending.
Behind the Allegations: A Power Struggle
The dispute goes beyond legal allegations. The FIR reflects a power struggle within the Mehta family, which runs the Lilavati Trust. Reports suggest that some members have been fighting to gain control over the Trust and hospital for years.
Chetan Mehta’s group has reportedly used legal means to secure their leadership. Jagdishan’s legal team says the bribery claim is part of a larger smear campaign against him and the bank. They believe the Trust’s legal move is an attempt to block loan recovery efforts.
Impact on HDFC Bank
Though Jagdishan denies the charges, the FIR has reputational risks for HDFC Bank. The bank is one of India’s most respected financial institutions. Allegations of corruption at the top level can affect its public image and investor confidence.
So far, HDFC Bank has supported Jagdishan. In a statement, the bank said it will use all legal options to protect its CEO. It also described the complaint as legally flawed and factually incorrect.
The bank’s public backing suggests it views the issue as an attack on its institutional integrity, not just on an individual.
What Happens Next?
The case will move forward once a new bench is assigned. The High Court will first hear arguments about interim protection for Jagdishan. After that, it will decide whether the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Meanwhile, investigators may continue to examine documents, bank records, and possible evidence. Both sides are expected to present financial statements, communication logs, and hospital records if the case proceeds.
The outcome could affect future legal strategies in corporate and trust-related disputes in India.
Conclusion
The bribery FIR against HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan highlights the tensions between corporate finance, family-run trusts, and legal accountability. While the court has not yet ruled on the case, it has already exposed deep divisions in the Lilavati Trust and raised important questions about ethics in high-level banking leadership.
Whether the High Court decides to quash the FIR or allow a full investigation, the case will likely influence corporate governance practices in India. It also sends a message about how legal complaints can become tools in power struggles involving money, influence, and reputation.
