HC quashes notice to HDFC bank CEO in Lilavati hosp defamation case

The Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust had accused the CEO of carrying out a “coordinated campaign” to malign its reputation and obstruct its functioning as a public charitable institution

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside a notice issued by a metropolitan magistrate court to HDFC Bank chief executive officer and managing director Sashidhar Jagdishan for making allegedly defamatory statements about the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical (LKMM) Trust, which runs the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra West.

HC quashes notice to HDFC bank CEO in Lilavati hosp defamation case

The trust had accused Jagdishan of carrying out a “coordinated campaign” to malign its reputation and obstruct its functioning as a public charitable institution. It had also alleged that he had accepted free medical treatment and was involved in facilitating numerous illegal financial transactions – including a ₹2.05 crore bribe, undisclosed deposits worth ₹48 crore, and ₹1.5 crore allegedly routed to doctors under the guise of corporate social responsibility funds.

After the Girgaon magistrate court issued notices on June 16, 2025 to Jagdishan, HDFC Bank corporate communications head Madhu Chibbar and others named in the complaint, the trust had said, “This marks a significant step in holding the HDFC CEO accountable for what the trust alleges is a deliberate and sustained smear campaign.”

This prompted Jagdishan to challenge the order in the high court.

His counsel, senior advocate Ravi Kadam, submitted that the magistrate had failed to take cognisance of the verification statement of the complainant as per the provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which provided substantive procedural safeguards to the accused.

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda, representing the LKKM Trust, justified the magistrate’s order, submitting that the magistrate court had not yet taken the cognisance of the complaint; therefore, it was justified in issuing a notice to Jadgishan without recording the verification and sworn statement.

Ponda said cognizance of an offence is taken only after verification, citing several high court orders.

The single judge bench comprising justice SM Modak on August 5 rejected the trust’s contentions and set aside the magistrate court order, saying it could not have issued notices to the accused before verifying and taking cognisance of the complaint.

“If the magistrate has to take cognisance of an offence, he is expected to examine the complainant on oath and witnesses. If we consider the chronology, it shows that after filing of complaint, there has to be verification of the complainant and witnesses…Hearing the accused cannot be interpreted prior to recording the verification and the statement of witnesses, if any,” the court said.

The court stressed on the purpose of recording the verification, saying it gives an opportunity to the magistrate to ascertain whether to proceed further or not. When the accused is recognised with a right of audience, they have every right to insist on compliance with the procedure.

“Certainly, errors committed by the learned magistrate can be corrected by resorting to the provisions of the Constitution,” the court said.