Three Bombay High Court Judges Recuse From Hearing HDFC CEO's Plea For Quashing FIR Lodged By Lilavati Hospital

In an interesting turn of events, at least 03 judges of the Bombay High Court have from last one week, have recused from hearing the petition filed by Sashidhar Jagdishan, the CEO of HDFC Bank, who has sought to quash an FIR lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.

Notably, the complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance. It further accused Jagdishan of interfering in its internal affairs by misusing his position as the head of the HDFC bank.

Initially, Jagdishan's plea was listed for hearing before a division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil on June 18. This bench presently has the assignment to hear petitions for quashing FIRs. However, Justice Patil cited some personal difficulty and recused from hearing the matter.

Subsequently, Jagdishan's legal team led by senior counsel Amit Desai mentioned his plea before a bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak. However, Justice Kotwal recused.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain was then moved by Jagdishan's legal team on Wednesday (June 25). While agreeing to hear the plea Justice Jain specifically disclosed that he holds shares in the HDFC Bank and despite that no objection was taken. The plea was accordingly ordered to be listed on Thursday (June 26).

When the matter was called out for hearing on Thursday morning, advocate Niteen Pradhan objected to the bench from hearing the matter. 

Responding to Pradhan's objection, Justice Jain asked, "Is it because me holding shares (in HDFC)... Did I not disclose this yesterday itself?"

The judges, then recorded in their order, "Yesterday when this matter was mentioned for circulation before us, one of us (Jitendra Jain, J.) disclosed that he has shares in HDFC Bank. Today, when the matter was called out, the counsel appearing on behalf of Prashant Kishore Mehta, respondent no. 3 in this petition, expresses inability to consent to this Bench taking up this matter."

The judges also took note of the submission of senior counsel Amit Desai, who stated that his client has no objection, whatsoever to this Bench taking up this matter.

"However, considering the submission made on behalf of the 3rd respondent, we direct that the matter may not be placed before the Bench on which one of us (Jitendra Jain, J.) is a party," the judges ordered. 

This order was strongly opposed by Desai, who questioned the recusal merely on the ground of holding shares. 

"It is the court which is going to pass an order not the shares....Shares are not going to come in the way... " Desai submitted, while accusing the respondents of indulging in 'Forum Shopping.'

Meanwhile, the bench was shown an administrative order passed by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, which listed names of six judges, who have already over the years of their judgeship have for some or the other reason, recused from hearing cases related to Lilavati Hospital. 

The names of these judges, as per the list, is:

• Justice Revati Mohite-Dere,
• Justice Girish Kulkarni,
• Justice Burgess Colabawalla, 
• Justice Riyaz Chagla, 
• Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and
• Justice Arif Doctor.

According to a lawyer, related to the proceedings, this list of judges, was given to the Chief Justice by Jagdishan's legal team apprising the CJ of the fact that these judges will not hear their matter as they have already recused from hearing cases related to Lilavati Hospital due to some or the other reason. 

The matter is likely to be mentioned before a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Milind Sathaye on Monday (June 30) as it is the designated alternate court, now left for hearing the said plea as per the roster.