Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust Through Prashant Mehta vs Hdfc Bank Limited
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-OS:12592
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3095 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO.160 OF 2025
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust
Through Mr. Prashant Mehta & Anr. …Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust
Through Mr. Prashant Mehta & Anr.
….Plaintiffs
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. …Defendants
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Dakshesh Vyas,
Abhishekh Prabhu, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Mr. Tarun Mehra, Ms Jyoti
Ghag, Shailesh Prajapati, Ankit Singhal & Mr. Harsh Pandey, Advocates
for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Counsel a/w. Chitra Rentala, Khyati
Mehrotra & Anjali Sharma i/b. Trilegal, Advocates for Defendant No.1.
Dr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Chitra Rentala, Khyati
Mehrotra & Anjali Sharma i/b. Trilegal, Advocates for Defendant Nos.2
to 4.
Mr. Alankar Kirpekar a/w. Mr. Ayush Tiwari i/b. Shekhar Bhagat,
Advocates for Defendant No.5.
Mr. Ameya Gokhale a/w. Richa Bharti & Mr. Abhishek Mookherjee i/b.
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., Advocates for Defendant No.6.
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : June 9, 2026
Page 1 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
JUDGEMENT:
Context and Factual Background:
1. The captioned proceedings represent litigation initiated by the
Plaintiffs, alleging defamation by the Defendants. Plaintiff No.1, Lilavati
Kirtilal Mehta Trust ( “Lilavati Trust” ) and Plaintiff No.2, Prashant Kishor
Mehta ( “Prashant” ) allege that Defendant No.1, HDFC Bank Limited ( “HDFC
Bank” ) and its executives (Defendant Nos. 2 to 4) have defamed the Plaintiffs
and such defamatory content stands posted on the social media platforms run
by Defendant No. 5, X Corp. (formerly Twitter, “ X ”) and Defendant No. 6,
Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook, Instagram and the like, “ Meta ”).
2. Interim Application No.3095 of 2025 ( “IA 3095” ) in Suit No.160 of
2025 ( “Suit” ) seeks interim reliefs against the Defendants among others, in the
form of an injunction restraining the Defendants from making any statements
harming the reputation of the Plaintiffs, in furtherance of the reliefs sought in
the Suit, which, in turn, seeks injunctions as well as damages in the sum of
Rs.1,000 Crores. To set context, the prayers in the Suit that forms the basis of
IA 3095 are extracted below : -
i. A Decree may be passed for Permanent Perpetual Injunction in favor of the
Plaintiffs and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants, their
Page 2 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
representatives, employees, agents, heirs, or any other person from vilifying,
maligning, tarnishing, levelling scathing allegations and casting aspersions upon
the reputation, good will and image of the Plaintiffs and family through any
medium whatsoever;
ii. The Defendants and their representatives may be permanently restrained from
circulating/publishing/ uploading any defamatory content harming/injuring or
damaging the reputation of the Plaintiffs on any social media intermediaries;
iii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to restrain the Defendants, their
representatives, employees, agents, heirs, or any other person from vilifying,
maligning, tarnishing, levelling scathing allegations and casting aspersions upon
the reputation, good will and image of the Plaintiffs and family through any
medium whatsoever;
iv. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to direct the Defendants and media channels including the
X Corp/Defendant No. 5 (X. Com, formerly known as Twitter) and Meta Platforms
Inc. (FaceBook)/ Defendant No. 6 to remove all defamatory and libelous
articles/materials from all accounts, which has been published in any form
against the Plaintiff and Mr. Prashant Mehta and his family;
v. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to direct t he Defendant No.1 i.e., the HDFC Bank to
remove the Media Statement and the Press Release from the website of the
Defendant No. 1 Bank (which are accessible at)
i.e., https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/about-us/news-room/press-release/2025/
q2/media- statement and https://www.hdfcbank.com/content/bbp/repositories/
723fb80a-2dde-42a3-9793-7aelbe57c87f/Ppath=/Footer/About%20Us/News
%20Room/Press%20Release/Content/2025/92/Press-Release-Frivolous-FIR.pdf;
Page 3 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
vi. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass the Decree for Permanent
Perpetual Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants thereby directing the Defendants to issue a public apology
to the Plaintiff, Mr. Prashant Mehta and his family members for the wilful and
deliberate tortuous acts of defamation committed by them.
[Emphasis Supplied]
3. According to the Plaintiffs, HDFC Bank has published and caused to be
published, statements about the Plaintiffs which are defamatory. The prayers
in IA 3095 seek a prohibition on the making of any further statements as well
as removal of statements that are already published and are purportedly
defamatory. In the course of the hearing, another amendment was sought to
be made to the Suit by the Plaintiffs, to add individual news publishers as
parties, so that appropriate directions could be issued to them to refrain from
publishing defamatory statements. However, in the course of the hearing, on
the premise that the statements published by them emanated from HDFC
Bank, against which reliefs are sought, such amendments were not pressed
and IA 3095 was taken up for hearing. Considering the expanse and length of
submissions by Learned Advocates for the parties, IA 3095 was taken up by
consent of parties for final hearing, for consideration of interim relief, rather
than for ad interim relief.
4. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Lilavati
Trust and Prashant, would submit that the following statements ( “Subject
Page 4 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
Statements” ) are defamatory. The Subject Statements that are purportedly
defamatory of Prashant are extracted below:
A] An email dated June 6, 2025 sent on behalf of HDFC Bank to the
Free Press Journal, containing defamatory statement against Prashant
( Exhibit Z at Page No.614 of HDFC Bank’s reply affidavit ), which,
among others, states the following:
"One Mr. Prashant Mehta claiming to be the Trustee of Lilavati Trust has
initiated false and malicious prosecution against the Bank's MD and CEO to
thwart recovery of above Rs.65 crores in respect of outstanding loan and
interest pertaining to his family business namely 'Beautiful Diamonds, now
known as ' Splendor Gems' .
Having failed miserably to contest the Bank's claims and the defaulter
status of his family members (right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court), he
by grossly misusing Lilavati Trust's name has sought to intimidate the bank
and its Senior personnel by filing a false complaint .
In the past as well, similar false and fabricated legal actions were
instituted to thwart the recovery process before various fora . The
Bank took suitable remedial action and was successful in getting
those false prosecutions dismissed/set aside/quashed."
[Emphasis Supplied]
B] A statement dated June 7, 2025 published on the HDFC Bank
website ( Exhibit BB at Page No.702 of HDFC Bank’s reply affidavit ),
which, among others, states the following:
Page 5 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
“ The Trustee, Prashant Mehta and his family members owe substantial
amounts to HDFC Bank which were never repaid. Recovery and
enforcement actions have been taken by the Bank over two decades and at
every stage Prashant Mehta and his other family members have launched
numerous vexatious legal actions. Having consistently failed at all levels
including the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, they have now resorted to the recent
mala fide personal attacks... "
[Emphasis Supplied]
C] A press release of June 8, 2025 published by HDFC Bank ( Exhibit
CC at Page No.703 of HDFC Bank’s reply affidavit ), which, was
published by various media platforms, states the following:
" Prashant Mehta, tru s t ee of Lilavati Hospital, and his family members owed a
huge sum of money to the bank, which was never repaid. "
"Recovery and enforcement actions have been taken by the Bank over two
decades and at every stage Prashant Mehta and his other family members have
launched numerous vexatious legal actions."
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. Mr. Kamat would also submit that the following statements contained
in an article published in the Indian Express ( Page No.477K of the Plaint ),
attributing statements to HDFC Bank, are defamatory of Lilavati Trust:
"HDFC Bank says it has commenced legal action against Lilavati Trust over
loan default issue"
"Bank on Wednesday said it "has commenced the process of taking legal
action permissible under law to vindicate its position" over allegations of a
Page 6 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
loan default by Lilavati Kiritilal Mehta Trust "
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. Mr. Kamat would submit that the natural and ordinary meaning of the
Subject Statements must be examined and one must test what impact such
statements would have on the mind of an ordinary man who is not meant to be
a sophisticated reader such as a lawyer or a judge. The implications and
imputations in the mind of an ordinary man, in particular, when on the face of
it the statements are derogatory, Mr. Kamat would submit, would need to be
borne in mind. Should the words used tend to lower the reputation of the
persons about whom the statements are made in the estimation of “right
thinking members of society”, it should necessarily follow that the statements
are defamatory.
7. Applying the aforesaid tests to the Subject Statements, Mr. Kamat
would submit that an ordinary man reading these statements would get the
impression that Lilavati Trust and Prashant have borrowed money from
HDFC Bank and defaulted in repaying such sums. Such an imputation, Mr.
Kamat would submit, necessarily lowers the reputation of the Plaintiffs and
excites adverse opinions and feelings about the Plaintiffs among right thinking
members of society. He would fundamentally emphasize that to begin with,
the contents of the Subject Statements are patently false because neither
Page 7 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
Lilavati Trust, nor Prashant Mehta have borrowed any funds from HDFC
Bank.
8. In particular, Mr. Kamat would join issue with the sentence “ Prashant
Mehta and his family members owe substantial amounts to HDFC Bank
which were never repaid.” and the sentence “ Recovery and enforcement
actions have been taken by the Bank over two decades and at every stage
Prashant Mehta and his other family members have launched numerous
vexatious legal actions. ” An ordinary man would carry an impression that
Prashant has personally borrowed substantial monies from HDFC Bank and
has failed to repay the same, and worse, was vexing HDFC Bank with baseless
litigation. These sentences, Mr. Kamat would submit, lowers the reputation of
Prashant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. In this
context, the Suit claims damages in the sum of Rs.1,000 Crores alleging loss of
reputation and attendant loss of financial contribution to Lilavati Trust and
for mental agony and harassment caused due to the allegedly wilful and
deliberate torturous acts of defamation committed by the Defendants.
9. In particular, Mr. Kamat would accuse Defendant No.2, Sashidhar
Jagdishan ( “Jagdishan” ), the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer
of HDFC Bank, for being responsible for HDFC Bank disseminating the
Subject Statements. Defendant No.3, is an unnamed “ official spokesperson ” of
Page 8 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
HDFC Bank while Defendant No.4 is one Ms. Madhu Chhibber (“ Chhibber ”)
designated as Head of Corporate Communications of HDFC Bank. The
submission is that HDFC Bank being an artificial legal person, it is these other
Defendants under whose watch and directions the defamatory Subject
Statements have been published and caused to be published by HDFC Bank.
10. Mr. Kamat would submit that neither Lilavati Trust nor Prashant have
borrowed any money from HDFC Bank. HDFC Bank had roped Prashant into
the recovery proceedings only in his capacity as legal representative of his late
father Mr. Kishor Mehta (“ Kishor ”). The liability of Prashant is limited to the
extent of the estate, if any, inherited by him from Kishor. This has to be
adjudicated and only upon adjudication can Prashant be said to owe monies to
HDFC Bank and that too in the aforesaid capacity. This nuance has been
deliberately killed resulting in half-truths being passed off as absolute truths,
defaming Prashant, Mr. Kamat would contend. As for Lilavati Trust, it has
nothing at all to do with HDFC Bank, he would submit. Lilavati Trust had not
borrowed any funds from HDFC Bank; has no exposure to HDFC Bank even
pursuant to Kishor’s death, and therefore the Subject Statement that ropes in
Lilavati Trust is per se baseless and totally untrue. Even for Prashant, until the
Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal ( “DRT” ), which is seized of proceedings,
adjudicates liability as claimed by HDFC Bank, no debt can be said to be owed
Page 9 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
by Prashant to HDFC Bank. Therefore, the Subject Statements contending
that Prashant owes monies to HDFC Bank are untrue.
11. Therefore, Mr. Kamat would submit, HDFC Bank's contention that
Prashant and his family members owe substantial amounts to HDFC Bank,
none of which are repaid, and that vexatious proceedings have been initiated
by Prashant, is an emphatic assertion of a fact which is not a fair comment to
fit the Subject Statements within the defenses available in defamation matters.
An assertion of fact can be justified only if it is a complete truth and not
otherwise. The Subject Statements are of a nature where HDFC Bank would
need to prove that not only the comments but also the inferences therefrom
are complete truths, rather than merely prove certain basic facts to be true,
which is a test applicable to fair comment. Mr. Kamat would submit that the
assertion that Prashant and his family members owe money to HDFC Bank
would not fall in the realm of a fair comment since it is patently false by reason
of Prashant neither having borrowed any money from HDFC Bank, nor having
been adjudicated by the DRT as owing any money without being the original
borrower.
12. Mr. Kamat would also submit that the Subject Statements are “half-
truths” structured and aimed at inflicting injury to the reputation of the
Plaintiffs and can never fall within the realm of reasonable justification
Page 10 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
because for such justification, the statement alleged to be defamatory has to be
completely based on true facts. The best case of the Defendants would be that
Prashant Mehta owed money to HDFC Bank by virtue of being a legal
representative of his late father Kishor, and that too to the extent of Kishor’s
estate inherited by Prashant. Therefore, the Subject Statements which are
absolute in nature cannot be regarded as absolute truths, but are twisted half-
truths, structured only to inflict injury to Prashant’s reputation. Read without
context, the impression given to ordinary minds among the right-thinking
members of society is that Prashant has personally borrowed amounts from
HDFC Bank and has defaulted in repaying such money. Such imputation is
prejudicial to the Plaintiffs and stains the reputation of the Defendants. The
Defendants, according to Mr. Kamat, are fully aware of the specific facts of the
case and yet, material facts were deliberately omitted, resulting in publication
of half-truths harming the Plaintiffs’ reputation.
13. In such cases, according to Mr. Kamat, the interim injunction must
follow and a mere plea of justification in making the Subject Statements is not
sufficient for denial of interim relief. Towards this end, Mr. Kamat would rely
1
upon the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in Shree Maheshwar
1 Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation. Ltd. v. Chitroopa Patil & Anr. – (2024) 1
Mah. LJ 382.
Page 11 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
2
which is reiterated in various judgements including Indian Express . The
following extracts are relied upon :-
49. After having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length and after
perusal of the impugned judgment and order and also the various judgments cited
by both the parties, it is clear that in any event, principles the of law in England and
in India with regard to grant of interlocutory reliefs in a civil action for Libel are
different. In England, the principle of law is that in case of an action for
defamation, once the defendants raise the plea of justification at the interim stage,
the plaintiff will not be entitled to an interlocutory injunction. To put in other words,
in England, a mere plea of justification by the defendant would sufficient be to
deny the plaintiff any interim relief. As far India as is concerned, as has been
clearly held by this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove, specially the
judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Yashwant Trivedi v. Indian Express
(Bombay) Private Ltd. dated 21st March, 1989 and the judgment of
Newspapers
appellate Bench dated 29th June, 1989 with regard to the same matter in appeal ,
the judgment of this Court in Purshottam Odhnvji Solanki v. Sheela Bhatta dated 3rd
December, 1990 , judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Betty Kapadia v. Magna
Publishing Co. Ltd. dated 22nd July, 1991, and the judgment in the case of Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Magna Publishing Co. Ltd . , dated 21st July ,
1995, it is clear that in India, a mere plea of j ustification would not be
sufficient for denial of interim relief. The defendants, apart from taking a plea of
justification will have to show that the statements were made bona fide and were in
public interest, and that the defendants had taken reasonable precaution to ascertain
truth, and that the the statements were based on sufficient material which could be
tested for its veracity. Therefore, in India, the Court is very much entitled to scrutinise
material tendered by the the defendants so as to test its veracity and to find out
whether the said statements were made bona fide and that whether they were in public
interest. Therefore, in India , even at the interlocutory stage, the Court is very much
2 Indian Express (P) Ltd. v. Unmesh Padmakar Gujarathi – 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1147.
Page 12 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
entitled to look into the material produced by the defendants for the plea of
justification, so as to test its veracity with regard to the allegations, alleged to be
defamatory.
]
[Emphasis Supplied
14. Mr. Kamat would draw the attention of this Court to another facet of the
grounds on which the Defendants have made the Subject Statements, namely,
that they are a reaction to statements made by Prashant against HDFC Bank.
He would submit that Prashant indeed held a Press Conference and HDFC
Bank claims to have been constrained to release a media statement to protect
the reputation of HDFC Bank and its senior officials, but it is no defence to
defamation that it was a retaliation to defamation.
3
15. Towards this end, Mr. Kamat would rely upon Kunwar Radha Krishen
to contend that it was open to HDFC Bank to file a defamation suit but it could
not retaliate by defaming the Plaintiffs. The following extracts are relied upon:
33. Even where a person is defamed, and the law gives him an opportunity to
defend himself, he may publish such matters as will clear his own conduct. Cases
have occurred where a person, to defend himself, has been permitted to use
strong language. But the privilege does not extend to defame one's opponent if
such defamation does not clear his own conduct. If the person defending himself
goes to the extent of describing his opponent a ‘liar’, it may be argued that in his
zeal he used necessarily strong language and he may be excused. But he does not
clear his own conduct by simply defaming his opponent. Therefore, defamation of
3 Kunwar Radha Krishen Pratap Singh v. H.S. Bates, I.C.S – 1950 SCC Online Allahabad
15.
Page 13 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
one's rival carried out by way of retaliation is not permissible. Even if Dikshit's
object was to prove that the insinuations made against him in the representation
were false, that object could not be achieved by telling others that the Maharaja
considered the appellant a “wicked and ignoble” person. Similarly he could not
disprove the said insinuations by stating that the appellant himself was an
‘intriguer and disloyal’. The appellant's unworthy conduct, if any, could not be a
justification of Diskshit's conduct. In the circumstances Dikshit cannot be held to
have possessed any privilege to either communicate the Maharaja's libellous
order or to call the appellant an “intriguer and disloyal”. The learned Single
Judge's finding on the point cannot be upheld. As already stated no such privilege
had been claimed by Dikshit in the pleadings and there was no issue as to
whether Dikshit enjoyed any privilege.
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of HDFC Bank
would sharply counter Mr. Kamat’s contentions by pointing out that each and
every statement forming part of the Subject Statements were factually accurate
and must be contextually read in the backdrop of the entire factual matrix. He
would point to the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which applies
to recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,
1993 ( “RDB Act” ). Kishor and his family, including his other sons, had
borrowed monies from HDFC Bank and are defaulters. Indeed, they continue
to owe monies to HDFC Bank. He would submit that long and vexatious
proceedings have indeed been initiated by Prashant and HDFC bank has had
Page 14 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
to deal with the sharp and clever practices adopted by Prashant, which have
been calculated to ensure that no recoveries are made by HDFC Bank.
17. Mr. Setalvad would submit that pursuant to Kishor’s demise in May
2024, Prashant and his mother Mrs. Charu Mehta ( “Charu” ) have been
positively impleaded by the DRT in the recovery proceedings instituted in
2004. The recovery certificate against Prashant came to be issued on July 5,
2024. Therefore, Prashant and his family indeed owe money to HDFC Bank as
legal heirs of Kishor. Mr. Setalvad would submit that once the aforesaid due
process of law to extend the recovery proceedings to Prashant and his family
took a decisive step forward in the form of the DRT order issuing a recovery
certificate on July 5, 2024, Prashant and his family have stepped up vexing
HDFC Bank and Jagdishan with multiple proceedings, with the aid and
assistance of former police officers who are in the employment of Lilavati
Hospital run by Lilavati Trust. On the very same day as the DRT roping
Prashant and Charu into the recovery proceedings i.e. on July 5, 2024, it was
Lilavati Trust that filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( “CrPC” ) seeking directions to the Bandra
Police Station to register a First Information Report ( “FIR” ) against HDFC
Bank's officials for offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
criminal conspiracy and acts done by several persons in furtherance of a
common intention of committing crime. Therefore, Mr. Setalvad would
Page 15 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
submit, it was Lilavati Trust that jumped into the fray with vexatious action,
by filing a complaint in the name of Lilavati Trust. Even while it purports to be
a public charitable trust, the allegations made by Lilavati Trust in the
complaint pertained to personal acts and consequences allegedly suffered by
Kishor in his personal capacity.
18. Mr. Setalvad would submit that Prashant brought Lilavati Trust into the
picture, and through an Executive Officer of Lilavati Hospital, also a former
police officer incumbent when recovery proceedings were underway, made
various allegations against the Defendants, contending that the mental
anguish caused by senior officials of HDFC Bank led to the death of Kishor on
May 20, 2024. The accusation was that HDFC Bank and its officials are guilty
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is clearly a vexatious
and baseless allegation. Therefore, while Lilavati Trust may have no direct
role in the debts run by Kishor and now owed by Prashant and his family
members, through Prashant in his capacity as trustee of Lilavati Trust and
through the Executive Officer of Lilavati Trust, the seemingly unconnected
charitable trust took up the mantle of levelling reckless and vexatious
allegations against HDFC Bank. The bank, in turn, legitimately and fairly
stated the truth like it is, and this can never be defamatory, according to Mr.
Setalvad. It was Prashant who used the office of Lilavati Trust and his position
as Trustee of Lilavati Trust, adopting the platform of Lilavati Trust and its
Page 16 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
social media handles on X and Meta, to launch a broadside against HDFC
Bank, Jagdishan and other officials, to assail and frustrate bona fide recovery
proceedings initiated by them.
19. Mr. Setalvad points out that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in
Bandra declined taking cognizance of such a baseless complaint, and explicitly
held that all the actions of HDFC Bank were legitimately taken in prosecution
of their legitimate efforts at recovery of arrears owed to them. By an order
dated August 3, 2024, the Magistrate held that the legitimate prosecution of
legitimate claims cannot lead to any reasonable view that the actions were
deliberately designed to harass Kishor to the point of causing his death.
Lilavati Trust filed a revision application challenging the Magistrate Court's
order dated August 3, 2024 invoking Section 442(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. According to Mr. Setalvad, this approach points to
the vexatious nature of the Plaintiffs’ actions against HDFC Bank and its
officials. The amounts owed by Prashant Mehta and his family have been
substantial. Despite several orders being passed by the DRT, numerous,
frivolous and vexatious legal measures, including in the name of Lilavati Trust,
have been initiated by Prashant across multiple forums including the DRT,
this High Court, Supreme Court, Magistrate’s Court and even filing a
complaint of harassment of a religious minority before the Maharashtra State
Minority Commission (“ Minorities Commission ”) invoking Kishor’s religious
Page 17 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
identity as Jain – all of which were aimed at thwarting HDFC Bank’s
legitimate recovery proceedings.
20. Therefore, retaliatory vexatious conduct was indulged in by the
Plaintiffs and not the Defendants, Mr. Setalvad would submit, indicating that
this would clearly point to the Subject Statements, as summarised below,
indeed being factual:
A] Prashant Mehta and his family members owe substantial
amounts to HDFC Bank which were never repaid;
B] Recovery and enforcement actions have been taken by the
Bank for over two decades; and
C] At every stage Prashant Mehta and his other family members
have launched numerous vexatious legal actions.
Analysis and Findings:
21. With the assistance of submissions by Mr. Kamat and Mr. Setalvad, I
have examined the record, bearing in mind the law cited by them and the stage
at which this Court is seized of the matter. At the threshold, I must make it
clear that the standard of review canvassed by Mr. Kamat, is what I have
applied in reviewing the factual matrix. In particular, as set out in the
declaration in Shree Maheshwar , I have applied the standard that the
Page 18 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
Defendants must, apart from claiming justification in making statements,
indicate that the statements were bona fide and in public interest and that
based on material, the truth and veracity of which justifies the Subject
Statements that are assailed. Equally, I have considered if the Subject
Statements constitute retaliatory defamation in response to defamation by the
Plaintiffs. Likewise, I have examined what reactions the Subject Statements
would excite in ordinary minds of right-thinking people to test defamatory
impact as alleged by the Plaintiffs.
22. Seen in that backdrop, I have examined whether the Subject Statements
are factually accurate, fair, and well justified by the material and facts forming
part of the record – all with the perspective of forming a prima facie opinion to
assess the need for an interim intervention as sought in IA 3095. I have then
applied the test of whether grave and irreparable harm would be occasioned if
the injunction is granted or not granted, and also where the balance of
convenience lies in dealing with IA 3095.
23. I find that by an order dated October 26, 2004 ( “2004 DRT Order” ),
Kishor had already been declared to be liable for being proceeded against in
the recovery proceedings. The 2004 DRT Order was not even challenged and
thus attained finality. However, it is after Prashant was ordered to be made a
party to the certificate proceedings after Kishor’s demise that that Prashant
Page 19 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
commenced the spree of filing multiple frivolous proceedings to lash out at
HDFC Bank.
24. For completeness, the proceedings conducted by the DRT and the
underlying documentary material must be examined. By an order dated
February 5, 2020 passed by the Recovery Officer of the DRT pursuant to
recovery certificate dated November 30, 2004 issued by the Presiding Officer
of the DRT, an amount of Rs.~14.74 Crores along with interest and costs,
which, as of February 26, 2018 was to the tune of Rs.~ 184.86 Crores, was
declared to be recoverable. A warrant of attachment for properties, including
movable property as well as mortgage to immovable properties was approved.
The Defendants had filed their affidavit of assets including Kishor and
Prashant’s siblings namely, Mr. Rajesh Mehta (“ Rajesh ”) and Mr. Rajiv Mehta
(“ Rajiv ”), with the amounts owed by corporate debtors namely, Beautiful
Diamonds Ltd. and Beautiful Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. This order contained the
finding that all these parties were men of means and persons enjoying every
comfort in life, travelling all over the world, even while significant amounts
were owed to HDFC Bank. Citing flight risk and the risk of them absconding
and leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the recovery proceedings, an arrest
warrant was issued against Kishor, Rajesh and Rajiv, giving them liberty to
travel abroad subject to the condition that they deposit 25% of the amount
Page 20 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
owed as of the date of the visit and after availing permission from the DRT for
such travel.
25. Instructions had also been issued to the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai to ensure the execution of the arrest warrant and to the Deputy
Governor of Reserve Bank of India to pass appropriate orders for attachment
of all bank accounts, shares and lockers in the names of the aforesaid persons.
As contended by Mr. Setalvad and Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar (Learned Senior
Advocate on behalf of Jagdishan, Chhibber and the unnamed Defendant No.
3), an incumbent in the office of the Commissioner of Police would later join
Lilavati Trust and address a press conference against HDFC Bank later in the
run-up to the captioned proceedings. The Order dated February 5, 2020 was
challenged in Writ Petition No.132 of 2023 (“ WP 132 ”) seeking intervention of
the Writ Court. A Learned Division Bench, after considering the submissions
made by the parties, directed that the findings in the order dated February 5,
2020 would be treated as interim prima facie findings pending
reconsideration of the application that had been disposed of, giving the parties
an opportunity to make submissions as to why the order dated February 5,
2020 should be modified or varied. In other words, the order dated February
5, 2020 was not set aside, but the underlying application was asked to be
considered for an effective modification or moulding of the reliefs issued,
Page 21 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
giving the persons aggrieved an opportunity to make submissions on such
facets.
26. Pursuant to such order of the Learned Division Bench disposing of WP
132, the Recovery Officer passed a fresh order dated October 25, 2023 giving
reasons and holding that each individual in the Mehta family who had been
arraigned, namely Kishor, Rajiv and Rajesh were men of means and had the
ability to pay the dues owed to HDFC Bank fully or partially and that the
disclosure affidavits filed by them were false. It was held that they had
dishonestly incorporated three companies and made transfers in utter
violation of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been
made applicable to recovery by way of certificate proceedings under RDB Act.
Accordingly, the direction to issue a warrant of arrest was reiterated, the bank
accounts were attached and an identical request to the then Commissioner of
Police and the then Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of India was reiterated
by the order dated October 25, 2023.
27. On October 30, 2023, the Recovery Officer wrote to the Commissioner
of Police in the matter asking for the warrant of arrest to be executed under
Section 25 of the RDB Act. The order dated October 25, 2023 was subjected to
a fresh challenge before a Learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.1760 of 2024 (“ WP 1760 ”). After reviewing the matter and
Page 22 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
assessing the legislative policy of a pre-deposit to pursue an appeal under the
RDB Act, the Learned Division Bench found it fit to put Kishor, Rajesh and
Rajiv to terms for even entertaining WP 1760 and directed the deposit of sum
of 25% of the debt due as of November 8, 2023 with this Court within a period
of two weeks. The Learned Division Bench held that WP 1760 would be
considered if the deposit were made, but if it were not made, the writ petition
would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. To ascertain
whether the amount was indeed deposited, the matter was stood over to
November 29, 2023. The arrest warrant was suspended subject to compliance
with the direction to make the deposit being complied with. Enforcement of
the arrest warrant was deferred until November 29, 2023. It was made clear
that a default would lead to the deferment being lifted and the arrest warrant
coming into force forthwith.
28. Admittedly, no such deposit was made and indeed, no reliefs were
granted. Yet another Writ Petition, namely, Writ Petition No.2830 of 2024
(“ WP 2830 ”) was filed seeking intervention with the recovery proceedings that
were underway before the DRT and asking for the 2004 DRT Order passed on
October 26, 2004 to be stayed in the interim and set aside finally. Another
Learned Division Bench of this Court, after consideration of WP 2830 held
that not only was it filed with a delay of 20 years, but also no reasons had been
Page 23 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
assigned for not availing the alternate remedy available under the RDB Act.
Therefore, WP 2830 was dismissed at the threshold.
29. When one examines the order sheet of the DRT and the orders passed
on June 2o, 2024, the quasi-judicial finding contained therein indicates that
there was an active attempt to frustrate the recovery proceedings with multiple
applications being made before the DRT. An interim application filed by the
Mehta Family was rejected and permission to travel abroad was denied and
intimation was given to the Immigration Authorities to ensure that Rajesh
does not leave India. This order dated June 20, 2024 was challenged in one
more writ petition being Writ Petition (L) No.19225 of 2024 (“ WP 19225 ”).
30. Another DRT Order dated July 5, 2024 was passed in the recovery
proceedings by which HDFC Bank was permitted to bring the legal heirs of
Kishor on record since Kishor had passed away on May 20, 2024. Kishor’s
demise had been announced in an advertisement published in the Times of
India on May 21, 2024. Towards this end, Rajesh, Prashant, Rajiv, all of whom
are sons of Kishor and Charu, were made parties with a specific demand notice
being issued against them as legal heirs of Kishor. A direction that there would
be no alienation of the properties, and the arrest warrant being active since
2020 against Kishor, but without the benefit of any stay and with every
attempt to challenge these proceedings having failed and no recoveries being
Page 24 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
made despite a direction to make a pre-deposit, the DRT now brought
Prashant directly within the fold of the recovery proceedings.
31. Exhibit ‘D’ to HDFC Bank’s affidavit in reply lists a total of 23
proceedings initiated by Prashant and his family members and trustees of the
Lilavati Trust.
32. To consider the extent to which the Plaintiffs have gone to frustrate the
recovery proceedings, it would be appropriate to notice the invocation by
Prashant, of his family’s religious identity as Jains to claim oppression of his
father and family, as a religious minority. By claiming minority status, the
Minorities Commission was approached. This led to judicial review of the
underlying facts, in particular, the conduct around the claim of Kishor having
been hounded to death and that too with a minority angle, when HDFC Bank
filed Writ Petition No.4532 of 2024 to quash the proceedings before the
Minorities Commission. These Minorities Commission proceedings were
quashed by an order dated September 18, 2024 categorically holding that the
principal borrower and/or the guarantors including those against whom
recovery certificates had been issued have failed to discharge the debt and
have indulged in a “ spree of filing frivolous proceedings, thus frustrating the
recovery on one or the other pretext ”. This judgement dated September 18,
2024 passed by a Learned Division Bench of this Court categorically dealing
Page 25 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
with various factual aspects in the matter has returned the finding that liability
of Kishor was visited upon his legal heirs and they have recklessly sought to
frustrate the recovery.
33. The Learned Division Bench noticed a list of 15 proceedings filed by
Prashant’s family before the Bombay City Civil Court, this Court and the
Supreme Court, and found that the resort to the Minorities Commission was
yet another attempt to frustrate proceedings for recovery initiated by HDFC
Bank. This would evidently underline a strong prima facie finding on the
accuracy of the Subject Statements to the extent that HDFC Bank stated that
Prashant had sought to vex HDFC Bank’s efforts at recovery – clearly, to give
recovery proceedings under the RDB Act the colour of persecution of a
minority community as a wanton and deliberate case of vexatious proceedings.
Therefore, in my prima facie view, the Subject Statements would not evoke
any false impression in any ordinary mind among right thinking members of
society – it is fully backed by a judicial finding to the same effect as the effect
that the Subject Statements would have in this regard.
34. Therefore, the statement that there has been a flurry of vexatious and
frivolous proceedings is a matter of a judicial finding rendered, making it
difficult to agree with Mr. Kamat that the impression given by the Subject
Statements is far from the truth. In fact, even ordinary men without legal
Page 26 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
expertise who are right thinking members of society who read the judgement
dated September 18, 2024 passed by the Learned Division Bench quashing the
proceedings filed before the Minorities Commission would get the same
impression as they would from reading the Subject Statements in this regard.
35. The next facet of my assessment is the run up to the Subject Statements
which are all made in June 2025. This is where the role of Lilavati Trust,
seemingly disconnected from the recovery proceedings pursued by HDFC
Bank against Kishor and on his demise, Prashant and Charu, comes in.
Indeed, Lilavati Trust has no financial exposure to HDFC Bank. While it may
be run by family members who themselves have internecine disputes over
control of the trust, despite purporting to be a public charitable trust, under
Prashant’s watch, Lilavati Trust jumped into the fray. Put differently, it is
Prashant who caused Lilavati Trust to be brought into the picture. The
letterhead of Lilavati Trust, the official social media handles of Lilavati Trust
and the banner of Lilavati Trust have all been used liberally by Prashant to
wage battles against HDFC Bank in the courts of law and in the court of public
opinion.
36. The criminal complaint under CrPC alleging that HDFC Bank and its
officials are guilty of culpable homicide was filed on July 5, 2024 by Lilavati
Trust. On the rejection of the complaint, it is Lilavati Trust that filed a revision
Page 27 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
application. A year later, in June 2025, the press conference making serious
allegations against HDFC Bank and Jagdishan were officially held by Lilavati
Trust, indeed under the watch of Prashant and the CEO of the Lilavati Trust.
A complaint with allegations against Jagdishan and HDFC Bank was issued to
regulators namely, the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange
Board of India on the letterhead of Lilavati Trust. When the Free Press
Journal confronted HDFC Bank for a reaction to the letter written by Lilavati
Trust to the Chairman of HDFC Bank and to the other board members, HDFC
Bank responded with the contents of the Subject Statements, which are now
assailed in the Suit. In short, Lilavati Trust has occupied centre stage in the
assault against HDFC Bank and has been placed in the midst of the conflict
between Prashant and HDFC Bank. Therefore, evidently being accustomed to
act in a manner aligned with Prashant, it is not reasonable to contend, as
suggested by Mr. Kamat, that it is a standalone and distinct charity that has
been defamed by HDFC Bank.
37. Having said that, one must consider if the contents of the Subject
Statements to the extent Lilavati Trust assails them as defamatory are prima
facie bona fide, legitimate and factually accurate to not constitute defamation,
as alleged. The contents relevant to Lilavati Trust assailed by Mr. Kamat have
been extracted above. It is apparent that HDFC Bank contends that it was
only clarifying its position through the Subject Statements and that too
Page 28 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
because the media reached out to HDFC Bank with a letter written by Lilavati
Trust being in the possession of Free Press Journal.
38. How a letter written by Lilavati Trust landed with the media can be
examined in full detail in the course of the trial of the Suit. However, what is
apparent is that prima facie , it is not at all reasonable to expect HDFC Bank to
release a letter containing serious allegations against it, to the media. Prima
facie , the only person to benefit from the leakage of Lilavati Trust’s letter to
HDFC Bank would be Prashant. Even if one were to presume that the leakage
was a bona fide sharing of the letter by someone despite Prashant being
against such leakage, the media having called for an explanation, it is only
reasonable and logical to expect HDFC Bank to explain its position. One has to
examine even the factual matrix in the context of free speech being a
fundamental right under the Constitution of India with only reasonable
restrictions being permitted. When a letter containing serious allegations
against HDFC Bank was imminently to be published in the media, and an
opportunity to get its side of the story was presented, the intention behind the
response by HDFC cannot be faulted. In my view, the need to respond is
clearly bona fide and it could not be faulted for having made the statements.
39. As for the content of the Subject Statements, I have paid particular
attention to the three facets underlined by Mr. Kamat. The first element of the
Page 29 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
Subject Statements, that Prashant and his family members owe substantial
amounts to HDFC Bank which were never repaid, is factually accurate, and in
its ordinary meaning to a layman conveys what it does. That Prashant and his
family members, which includes his siblings, owe monies is borne out by the
issuance of the recovery certificate by the DRT. The issuance of the recovery
certificate and even the 2004 DRT Order (with enormous delay) were indeed
challenged in multiple writ petitions and the challenges came to be rejected.
Conditions imposed by a Learned Division Bench to consider the challenge to
the recovery certificate were not met. Therefore, as a matter of factual
accuracy, monies were owed by Prashant and his family members to HDFC
Bank in terms of the recovery certificates issued by the DRT. This factual
position renders any attempt to contend that a final adjudication is a
precondition to state that monies were owed by Prashant as totally untenable.
The issuance of a Recovery Certificate is an indication of monies being owed.
A challenge to it was mounted but conditions imposed to pursue it were not
met. Therefore, prima facie , there is everything to support the view that the
first element of the Subject Statements referred to above in this paragraph is
borne out by the strong material on record, which material is to the Plaintiffs’
knowledge accurate. Therefore, no case for an injunction is made out.
40. The second element that recovery and enforcement actions have been
taken by HDFC Bank and pursued for 20 years without success is also
Page 30 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
factually accurate and borne out by strong material. Stating the same to
explain the motivations behind the assault on HDFC Bank and Jagdishan,
among others, through the leaked letter from Lilavati Trust to the HDFC
Bank’s board of directors and the financial sector regulators, is a bona fide
exercise. In my opinion, such an explanation is not only reasonable and bona
fide , but is also the responsibility of a listed bank to explain its position.
Banks have a far higher intensity of promise and assurance owed to not just its
stakeholders but also the society at large. If a bank is pursuing recovery
attempts and has been frustrated from success for 20 years, and in the course
of the conflict, serious allegations are levelled against the bank, stating this
element is not at all defamatory at least for this prima facie stage of
assessment. No case for an injunction is made out in this regard.
41. The third element is the assertion that Prashant and his family have
launched numerous vexatious legal actions to frustrate HDFC Bank. I have
already alluded to the judicial findings by a Learned Division Bench of this
Court returning a judicial finding of this very element to quash proceedings
initiated before the Minorities Commission. To my mind, allegations of
culpable homicide against a bank and its officials by resourceful litigants who
have indeed not paid a penny for 20 years and have not even made a deposit
as directed by a Learned Division Bench of this Court is not just intimidatory
but is also vexatious. A person against whom recovery certificates have been
Page 31 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
issued in accordance with law, invoking the jurisdiction of the Minorities
Commission to claim persecution of a religious minority is also vexatious to
my mind. Therefore, in my view, this element of the Subject Statements too
does not call for issuance of any injunction, being factual in nature and writ
large in the prima facie reading of the record.
42. The letters to the Chairman of HDFC Bank are by Prashant and on the
letterhead of Lilavati Trust. This clearly shows that both the Plaintiffs are
indeed prima facie involved in the vexatious “spree” of litigation aimed at
frustrating recoveries by HDFC Bank. Therefore, in my opinion, the Subject
Statements reflect a factually accurate position and fall within the realm of
truthful speech, which was indeed necessitated only because of the sustained
media campaign of articles against HDFC Bank and Jagdishan. Prashant’s
letter sought removal of Jagdishan in view of the FIR alleging culpable
homicide of Kishor. Prashant would accuse Jagdishan on the Lilavati Trust
letterhead, of aligning with the family members in the Mehta family who were
opposed to Prashant and being part of their agenda to oust Prashant from
Lilavati Trust. This letter found its way to the media, resulting in Chhibber
receiving queries from the Executive Editor of Free Press Journal, who in fact
shared the PDF copy of the entire letter written by Prashant as trustee of
Lilavati Trust to the HDFC Bank Chairman and other directors of HDFC Bank.
Page 32 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
43. This would evidently underline a strong prima facie finding in favour of
accuracy of the Subject Statements. Therefore, at this prima facie stage, no
case for intervention in the form of any interim restraint on HDFC Bank is
made out.
44. It is a judicial imperative to articulate the events in the run-up to the
press conference addressed by Lilavati Trust on June 7, 2025 under Prashant’s
watch. Various media agencies were invited to this press conference. Various
scandalous statements were made about HDFC Bank and Jagdishan. These
Defendants have a right to initiate their own proceedings for defamation if so
advised. However, whether to file such proceedings is a matter of their
autonomous choice. What is quite clear is that by not resorting to such
litigation and by resorting to just clarifying their position, HDFC Bank and
Jagdishan do not automatically become guilty of retaliatory defamation. If the
reaction in the court of public opinion, which was but triggered by the press
conference is factually accurate, no case of defamation would be made out. A
transcript of the press conference is an integral part of the record ( Exhibit AA
of HDFC Bank’s reply affidavit ). It was recorded and is published on
YouTube, ensuring wide dissemination of the press conference. An
institutional response to this, with facts, is a justifiable bona fide reaction that
cannot be faulted.
Page 33 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
45. Mr. Setalvad rightly points out that Lilavati Trust continued the public
battle and this time through Charu i.e. Prashant’s mother through another
press note on June 9, 2025, again with a covering letter on Lilavati Trust’s
letterhead addressing the Chairman of HDFC Bank, members of the Bank's
Audit Committee, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, the Chairman of
the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Managing Director of the
National Stock Exchange of India and various members of the media. This
communication, along with a press-note enclosing the letter dated April 25,
2024 issued by Charu to HDFC Bank; HDFC Bank's reply dated May 6, 2024;
and HDFC Bank's declarations in a compliance report dated August 14, 2024;
a legal notice dated June 9, 2025 from Lilavati Trust and Prashant to HDFC
Bank alleging defamation, were all disseminated.
46. In other words, the attempt by Charu, who is indeed a family member of
Prashant, sought to continue the campaign against HDFC Bank and indeed,
the official social media handle of Lilavati Hospital was used to post a titled
“ LKMM Trust denies HDFC Bank's claims, alleges criminal conspiracy,
bribery and culpable homicide by CEO Sashidhar Jagishan ” was published. It
is clear to me that HDFC Bank was constrained to release the Subject
Statements to clarify its position and to present its version of true and accurate
facts to members of the society. To my mind, upon examination of the
Page 34 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
contents of the Subject Statements, no case is made out for an interim
injunction against HDFC Bank and its officials.
47. A few days later, on June 11, 2025 further allegations through another
post on the official social media handle of Lilavati Hospital titled “ The Non-
Existent Loan Agreement and Uncovering the Shifting Loan Numbers ” was
published by Lilavati Trust. Mr. Setalvad rightly submits that such conduct
inherently underlines the Subject Statements as being truthful. I agree with
Mr. Setalvad that the Subject Statements were not only factual but were
rendered necessary because of the media campaign actively run by the
Plaintiffs necessitating a bona fide honest and good faith response by HDFC
Bank. The contents of the Subject Statements, prima facie being accurate, no
case is made out for an intervention.
48. Another prima facie view that appears inexorable is that in the course of
the ugly public spat, media organisations too have been commenting and
reporting on the matter. This is clearly a facet of free speech that the media in
India operates in. The publication of comments by Indian Express, extracted
above, on the face of it reflects that newspaper’s view of the stance taken by
HDFC Bank. The actual firm stance of HDFC Bank is clearly set out in its
published statements that remain on its website. Any extrapolation of the
same by newspapers cannot be visited upon HDFC Bank. The inelegance of
Page 35 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
the drafting of the portion highlighted by Mr. Kamat prima facie points to the
contents not being scripted by HDFC Bank but an expression of a journalistic
understanding of what had transpired.
49. To my mind, this is a manifestation of the standard canvassed by Mr.
Kamat – that one should see what impression an ordinary lay person who is
not a legal expert forms in the matter. That Lilavati Trust had jumped into the
fray and was actively attacking HDFC Bank and Jagdishan, when it also
purports to have no connection with HDFC Bank would only show that it was
engaged in concerted action with a common objective and purpose that is
aligned with Prashant’s position. An ordinary mind would see such common
objective and purpose being writ large and it is only a legally literate person
who would make a distinction between who borrowed and who owed and who
is being used to launch an attack on recovery. The editorial judgement of
newspapers is for the newspapers to explain and it is inappropriate for this
Court to comment any further on them. The limited enquiry necessary for
dealing with IA 3095 is whether a strong prima facie case of the Subject
Statements being defamatory is made out. To my mind, the strong prima facie
case is to the contrary i.e. that the Subject Statements are not defamatory and
are in fact based on a factually accurate foundation and making the Subject
Statements is a bona fide measure of explaining and defending a valid
recovery process adopted in accordance with law.
Page 36 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
50. Finally, I must state that the contention that Prashant’s indebtedness is
only to the extent of any inheritance by him from Kishor’s legal estate is a
matter of legal detail. What is inherited by him, whether any structures are
involved, the bona fide nature of any such structure, are all matters of merit
that would need a proper trial to adjudicate. Suffice it to say that when a
recovery certificate is issued against Kishor, and when Prashant as the legal
heir of Kishor is brought into the proceedings, it is a truthful statement that
Prashant and his family members owe monies to HDFC Bank. It does not
matter that Prashant had not originally borrowed from HDFC Bank – that
HDFC Bank has pending proceedings for recoveries from Prashant is an
accurate statement. Rule 85 in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act
would make Prashant liable to be brought into the proceedings “as if he had
owed the money”. Mr. Kamat would suggest that this is a case of an artificial
legal deeming fiction and the common man may think that Prashant has
borrowed funds. However, the Subject Statements simply state that Prashant
owes funds to HDFC Bank, which is a bona fide and accurate statement at this
prima facie stage. Therefore, nothing in this purported nuance turns the
needle in favour of grant of an injunction. The fact is that the Subject
Statements seen holistically cannot be faulted at this stage.
51. Mr. Kamat would also submit that Mr. Setalvad's reliance on the
Recovery Officer's order holding that Kishor and his family were “men of
Page 37 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
means” is no longer valid because it is HDFC Bank that had initiated
insolvency proceedings against Kishor with an Insolvency Notice No.224 of
2007 which is still pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4211
of 2010. I am unable to accept this contention because a person of means who
does not pay can indeed become subject matter of insolvency proceedings.
52. Mr. Setalvad and Mr. Tulzapurkar would also draw my attention to a
decision of the Supreme Court to point to how that Court had occasion to
comment on the conduct of the Mehta family in relation to recovery
proceedings of another bank. A Special Leave Petition had been filed by
Charu Mehta challenging an order dated June 13, 2022 passed by this Court
rejecting a First Appeal No.531 of 2022 with costs. The First Appeal had
challenged a rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by Charu in a suit before the Trial Court, where the
Oriental Bank of Commerce had filed a suit for recovery with outstanding dues
running to the tune of Rs.~277 Crores. In a nutshell, Charu had agreed to hand
over her residential premises towards discharge of debt by consent terms,
which were resiled from, after which the application for rejection of the suit
was filed only to be rejected. The appeal against the refusal to reject the plaint
was dismissed with costs. The Supreme Court took pains to narrate the
conduct. At this stage, I do not think it necessary to rely on judgement of the
Supreme Court on the merits of the prima facie assessment of IA 3095.
Page 38 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
53. To summarise:
A] The Plaintiffs have not made out a strong prima facie case against
HDFC Bank to hold that the Subject Statements were defamatory in
character. The imputations from the Subject Statements in the minds of
ordinary right-thinking people, who are not experts in law, would not be
inconsistent with the content of the Subject Statements which are not
inconsistent with the factual reality discernible from a prima facie
reading of the material on record;
B] The Subject Statements are based on strong material; they
represent a bona fide measure to clarify the factual position when faced
with a media campaign against HDFC Bank; and it was in public
interest that HDFC Bank clarifies the factual position considering that
banks hold a greater intensity of promise to society and have to be held
to a higher standard. In short, the tests laid down and canvassed on the
basis of the law declared in Shree Maheshwar , when applied leads to no
intervention against HDFC Bank being warranted;
C] The Subject Statements do not lend themselves to be regarded as
retaliatory defamation for the defamation perceived to have been
suffered by HDFC Bank and Jagdishan at the hands of the Plaintiffs;
Page 39 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
D] Whether to react through litigation for defamation or to deal with
the Plaintiff’s media campaign through clarifications contained in the
Subject Statements is a matter of autonomous choice for HDFC Bank to
make. That the Plaintiffs have chosen to file a defamation Suit in
response to HDFC Bank’s reaction is not relevant for consideration of
interim relief in the Suit;
E] Grave and irreparable harm would be occasioned to the
Defendants if an intervention is made in favour of the Plaintiffs, who
have an established track record of running a media campaign against
HDFC Bank and its officials. Gagging HDFC Bank would expose them
to the risk of being unable to respond to continued attacks by the
Plaintiffs. Gagging both sides would be contrary to the constitutional
default position of free speech that is truthful, because it would gag
HDFC Bank through the backdoor with a token gagging of the Plaintiffs;
and
F] The balance of convenience lies in HDFC Bank’s favour. The
judicial and quasi-judicial findings bear out the contents of the Subject
Statements. What is already in the public domain about the Plaintiffs
would only point to it being convenient not to interfere with HDFC
Bank’s ability to state the factual position in the public domain. In the
Page 40 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::
J-IA.3095.2025.doc
event the prima facie view formed now were to undergo a change upon
trial of the Suit, the permanent injunction can always be issued in
disposal of the Suit.
54. Therefore, IA 3095 is dismissed without any interim injunction being
granted to the Plaintiffs. It is apparent that each and every measure to derail
the recovery has been repelled by Courts and yet there has effectively been no
recovery at all despite the rule of law working its course. IA 3095 is one more
in this long chain of proceedings. Therefore, considering the nature of the
record relevant to this case, costs must follow the event. By a broad
assessment of reasonable costs going by the number of Advocates that have
had to be engaged and the number of hearings, in my assessment it would be
reasonable to direct that costs be paid by the Plaintiffs to HDFC Bank in the
sum of Rs. 5,00,000, within a period of six weeks from the upload of this
judgement on the website of this Court.
55. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken
upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 41 of 41
June 9, 2026
Aarti Palkar
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2026 15:34:44 :::