Big Trouble for HDFC Bank MD! Supreme Court Refuses to Hear HDFC Bank CEO’s Plea for FIR Cancellation

On July 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has declined to hear a petition filed by Sashidhar Jagdishan, the CEO of HDFC Bank, seeking cancellation of an FIR registered against him by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. The Court observed that the matter is already listed for hearing before the Bombay High Court on July 14, and therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene.

Why HDFC Bank CEO Moved the Supreme Court

The Lilavati trust has made several allegations on MD&CEO of HDFC Bank. The trust has accused MD&CEO of HDFC Bank of bribery, misuse of position, free medica treatments, conflict of interest and misuse of CSR fund. The Trust claims that Jagdishan accepted ₹2.05 crore as a bribe. In return, he allegedly gave financial advice that helped a private group (Chetan Mehta Group) keep illegal control over the hospital’s management.

The trust said that he used his position as head of a top private bank to interfere in the internal matters of a charitable trust, which is wrong and unethical. According to the Trust, Jagdishan and his family received free medical treatment at Lilavati Hospital — a benefit that the bank has not officially denied or acknowledged.

The Trust says it has kept ₹48 crore in deposits and investments with HDFC Bank since 2022. This financial relationship, they claim, makes Jagdishan’s actions suspicious and biased. The complaint also claims Jagdishan offered ₹1.5 crore as CSR funds (Corporate Social Responsibility money). But they allege it was actually meant to destroy or forge evidence related to the Trust’s internal disputes.

Jagdishan went to the Supreme Court saying that three different benches of the Bombay High Court refused to hear his case, which caused a lot of delay. He sought interim protection from any action related to the FIR until the matter could be heard in the High Court. His legal team argued that the FIR was baseless and was filed only to harass him and the bank, as part of an internal conflict between two factions of the Lilavati Trust.

Arguments Made by Both Sides

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Jagdishan, emphasized that the FIR was frivolous and aimed at dragging the bank into a private dispute. He argued that the reputation of HDFC Bank was being harmed and that Jagdishan had no role in the internal matters of the Trust. He pleaded for temporary protection, expressing concern that the matter might be further delayed even on July 14.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Lilavati Trust, objected to Jagdishan approaching the Supreme Court. He pointed out that July 14 was a date fixed with the petitioner’s own consent, and therefore, there was no urgency that required Supreme Court intervention.

Supreme Court’s Observation and Order

The bench, comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan, refused to entertain the plea. They stated that since the matter was already scheduled in the High Court, it was best left for that court to decide. The Court also expressed sympathy for the delay Jagdishan had faced due to judicial recusals but emphasized that the Supreme Court could not step in at this stage.

Justice Narasimha said,

“We sympathize that the quashing petition has been pending since June 12 and that judges have been recusing. It is unfortunate. But now that the matter is listed, we cannot entertain the petition here.”

The Court concluded by noting in its order that the case had already been listed multiple times in June and was now fixed for July 14. The bench expressed hope and trust that the Bombay High Court would take up the matter on the said date.

Delays Due to Recusals in the Bombay High Court

Jagdishan’s plea was originally listed before several benches of the Bombay High Court, but in each case, a judge recused. The timeline of events is as follows:

• June 18: Justice Rajesh Patil recused due to personal reasons.
• Then the plea was listed before Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak, but Justice Kotwal recused.
• Finally, it was listed before Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain. Justice Jain recused after disclosing that he owns HDFC Bank shares.

In addition, an administrative order already restricts six other judges from hearing cases related to the Lilavati Trust, further complicating the hearing process.

Urgent Mentioning Before Supreme Court

A day before the July 4 hearing, Jagdishan’s legal team mentioned the case before another Supreme Court bench led by Justice MM Sundresh. They stated that the FIR was part of an effort by some trustees to pressure the bank into withdrawing financial recovery proceedings. They also highlighted that the bank is suffering daily, and the MD is being targeted unfairly.

Final Remarks by the Supreme Court

In its official order, the Supreme Court said:

“We are informed that the matter is listed for hearing on the 14th of July. Therefore, there is no occasion for us to entertain this special leave petition… We hope and trust that the matter will be taken up on the designated date.”

Justice Narasimha also remarked that this official mention in the order should help ease the petitioner’s concern about further delays in the High Court.