Lilavati Hospital trustee gets setback from High Court, court says his appeal was an attempt to avoid payment of dues

Mumbai: A bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said that filing a complaint before the State Minority Commission was "merely an attempt to avoid one's responsibilities." The court delivered this verdict on 18 September.

Tue, 24 Sep 2024 07:22 PM (IST)
Lilavati Hospital trustee gets setback from High Court, court says his appeal was an attempt to avoid payment of dues
Lilavati Hospital trustee gets setback from High Court, court says his appeal was an attempt to avoid payment of dues

The Bombay High Court has termed a complaint filed by a trustee of Lilavati Hospital against HDFC Bank as an attempt to avoid making payment of dues. The trustee had accused the bank of causing harassment to his father and the founder of the hospital, leading to his death.

A Bench comprising Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande ruled that a complaint was filed before the State Minority Commission, which was "nothing but an evasion of duties." The judgment was delivered on 18 September by the court.

The court in July this year had set aside the show cause notice issued by the commission to HDFC Bank and its managing director and CEO asking them to how up before the commission on August 1.

The bench had heard the complaint filed by Rajesh Mehta, permanent trustee of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs Lilavati Hospital. In that, he had alleged that he and his father Kishor Mehta were subjected to severe harassment and mental torture by the senior management and recovery department of the bank.

The complainant has accused the bank of having colluded with some erstwhile trustees of the hospital trust and states this harassment resulted in the death of Kishor Mehta on May 20, 2024. He said senior management had kept the sword of arrest hanging over Kishor Mehta, which resulted in his untimely death.

The Mehta father-son belongs to the minority Jain community. The bank had challenged the notice in its petition in the High Court and denied the allegations, saying that the complaint before the commission was filed only to avoid the recovery proceedings initiated by it.

Accepting the argument, the court said that the complaint filed by Rajesh Mehta was nothing but an attempt to "derail the process adopted by HDFC Bank against its borrowers and to avoid facing action as a debtor, who were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs 14 crore." The bench said, "He (Rajesh Mehta) cannot approach the Commission in the name of being a member of the Jain community and get an order passed."

The court said that if the liability of recovery of dues falls on the complainant, then he cannot take advantage of being a member of the minority community to avoid it. The court also said that the Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction by issuing notice to the bank. 

The court quashed the show cause notice issued to the Managing Director and CEO of HDFC Bank, saying that it was done "without jurisdiction and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice."

Muskan Kumawat Journalist & Content Writer