HC rejects Lilavati trust plea to restrain HDFC Bank from making statements; imposes Rs 5 lakh cost

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an interim plea filed by the medical trust that runs Lilavati Hospital, seeking to restrain HDFC Bank, its managing director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, and others from making any defamatory remarks against the trust and its members.

The Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust filed the interim application in a defamation suit seeking Rs 1,000 crore damages from the bank, alleging that it and its senior executives allegedly released statements to the media and also on its social media platforms that were defamatory and harmed the reputation of the trust.

A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, while dismissing the application, however, noted that the statements were not defamatory and were in fact factually accurate.

The court also imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the trust, which would have to be paid to HDFC Bank, while noting that the application was just another plea in the long chain of proceedings initiated by the trust to derail the recovery proceedings.

The bench added that the statements made by HDFC Bank that the trust and its trustee Prashant Mehta owe the bank money were factually correct and hence fall within the realm of truthful speech.

The statements were necessitated only because of the sustained media campaign of articles against HDFC and its senior executives, the high court said.

The Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust, which runs Lilavati Hospital located in the Bandra area of the city, filed the suit against HDFC Bank Ltd and its executives, alleging that it made certain defamatory content on its social media platforms against the trust and its members.

The plea sought the high court to restrain the defendants from making such remarks in future that would harm the trust’s reputation, and also sought damages of Rs 1,000 crore.

HDFC Bank opposed the plea, stating that the trust and its trustees borrowed monies from the bank and defaulted on the repayment.

The high court in its judgment noted that the statements made by HDFC that the trustees owe substantial amounts to the bank, which were never repaid, and that the bank initiated recovery and enforcement actions were factually accurate.

Hence, the same cannot be called defamatory, the high court said.

Justice Sundaresan in fact termed as “vexatious” the allegations levelled by the trustees against the bank and its officials that they were responsible for the death of the trust’s founder Kishor Mehta.