Bombay HC Denies Lilavati Trust Interim Relief in ₹1000 Crore Defamation Case Against HDFC Bank, CEO

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused interim relief to the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust and its trustee Prashant Mehta in their ₹1,000 crore defamation suit against HDFC Bank, its MD & CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan, and others.

The court also imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the trust and the trustee, payable to HDFC Bank within six weeks.

The court held that the bank's impugned statements regarding outstanding dues and alleged vexatious litigation were prima facie supported by material on record and did not warrant an interim restraint.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a strong prima facie case of defamation.

“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,” the Court observed.

The dispute arose after Lilavati Trust and Prashant Mehta publicly levelled allegations against HDFC Bank and its MD & CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan. After a letter sent by the trust reached the media, HDFC Bank issued statements in June 2025 responding to the allegations.

In those statements, the bank stated that Prashant Mehta and his family owed substantial amounts to HDFC Bank that had not been repaid and that they had launched numerous vexatious legal actions to obstruct the bank's recovery efforts.

Contending that these statements were defamatory, the Trust and Mehta instituted a suit seeking ₹1,000 crore in damages and injunctions against HDFC Bank, its officials, X Corp., and Meta.

Referring to earlier findings concerning the recovery proceedings, the court observed that HDFC Bank's statements regarding vexatious legal actions were prima facie supported by the record.

“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,” the Court held.

The Court also observed that the circumstances in which the Lilavati Trust letter reached the media could be examined at trial. However, it held that it was reasonable for HDFC Bank to explain its position after journalists sought its response to the allegations.

“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,” the Court observed.

The Court further observed that although Lilavati Trust maintained that it had no financial exposure to HDFC Bank, it had participated in the public campaign against the bank. The Court referred to complaints, press conferences and social media activity that it found to be aligned with Prashant Mehta's position.

“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,” the Court observed.

The Court also held that granting an injunction would cause irreparable harm to the defendants. It observed that HDFC Bank should not be prevented from responding to allegations made against it.

“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,” the Court held.

Holding that no case for interim restraint had been made out, the Court dismissed the interim application.