The Future Ai

HC, in similar relief, quashed FIRs against three others too, who like Jagdishan had filed quashing petitions last year. The HC denied a plea by the trust, called the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, for transfer of the criminal probe to CBI.HC said, “There is serious acrimony, distrust and strained relations to the core between the erstwhile trustees and present trustees. When the new trustees took over, several recovery proceedings had already been initiated. Even today dues to the extent of Rs 65 crore are yet to be recovered.”It dubbed the complaint “a fallout of” and a “counterblast to recovery proceedings initiated by the financial institutions”. To allow a prosecution to continue “runs the risk of deterring recovery proceedings,” HC said in a common judgment.Lilavati trust row: Plaint against bank CEO not bona fide, says HCA personal vendetta writ large on the face of proceedings for recovery is something which we strongly perceive as a reason for interference,” the HC division bench of Justices MS Karnik and NR Borkar held. But HC refrained from “expressing any opinion so far as the allegations made against rest of the accused (erstwhile trustees).” Jagdishan’s senior counsel Amit Desai argued that the criminal proceedings initiated by a trustee against the HDFC CEO was a “gross abuse of process of law” intended to “harass him and tarnish the bank’s reputation.“Lilavati trustee Prashant Mehta who had filed the complaint, after HC judgment, said it would be challenged before SC where he expressed “faith that justice would be done for the Trust.” Mehta’s case was neither the trust nor he was party to the Debt RecoveryTribunal’s recovery certificate.Jagdishan faced two FIRs; HC quashed both. “The ripples of the strained relations between the family members who were and are managing the affairs of the trust are being felt by the petitioners,” the HC observed, saying even at this nascent stage, it concluded it was “not a bona fide complaint so far as the petitioners are concerned.”Refuting Jagdishan’s contentions, complainant Mehta’s senior counsel Devadatt Kamat and the trust’s senior counsel Aabad Ponda as well as prosecutor Mahalakshmi Ganapati opposing the petitions argued the complaint discloses a serious offense that warrants continued probe at this nascent stage when SC had called for sparing use of quashing powers. The probe can’t be scuttled at the threshold, argued Ponda.The FIR registered following orders of a Bandra judicial magistrate in May 2025 stood quashed also against Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd and two of its directors Venkattu Srinivasan, 64, and Keki Elavia, 79, after hearing their senior counsel Ravi Kadam and counsel Charles De Souza. Desai and Kadam, for another accused, said the magistrate’s order on a private complaint to order registration of FIR was “mechanical”. HC agreed.