Lilavati Trust Dispute: Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Trustee's Plea In Dispute Over Removal Of Trustees

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Niket V. Mehta, a former permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, challenging the Bombay High Court's order rejecting his writ petition seeking directions in proceedings for the suspension and removal of persons allegedly claiming to be trustees of the Trust.

Mehta's proceedings sought the suspension and dismissal of Charu K. Mehta, Prashant Mehta, Rajesh Mehta, Rajiv Mehta, Rakesh Khanna, Saurav Sharma, Kiran Shah, Sanjay Shroff, Mohit Mathur, and Tatyaba Palve, who he alleged were claiming to be trustees of the Trust.

A division bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale refused to interfere with the High Court's order but clarified that the observations made by the High Court, including those concerning the petitioner's intention, would not influence the further proceedings between the parties.

The Bench directed the Joint Charity Commissioner to decide the respondents' applications challenging the maintainability of the proceedings within six weeks.

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, we make it clear the observation made thereunder including the one pertaining to the intention of the petitioner shall have no bearing in the further proceedings inter se parties. The Joint Charity Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate orders on the maintainability applications preferred by the respondents within a period of 6 weeks.", the Court said.

Appearing for Niket Mehta, counsel argued that the proceedings concerning the maintainability of applications filed by the respondents had already been heard by the Joint Charity Commissioner and reserved for orders. He submitted that the authority had adjourned the matter for orders on Exhibits 19 and 22 which were the respondents' maintainability applications, by an order dated June 23, 2026.

Counsel submitted that he did not wish to address the merits of the allegations against the persons claiming to be trustees, as those issues were required to be examined by the Charity Commissioner. He pointed out that the Charity Commissioner also had the statutory power to initiate proceedings suo motu.

Even assuming that Mehta's own application was not maintainable, counsel argued, the Charity Commissioner had independently examined the material, found a prima facie case and issued notice. He therefore requested the Supreme Court to ensure that the substantive application was decided, irrespective of the outcome of the maintainability proceedings.

As an alternative, counsel sought a direction that the application be decided one way or the other, subject to the outcome of the maintainability applications. He submitted that if the respondents succeeded in their maintainability challenge, Mehta's application could be dismissed otherwise, it should proceed to a decision on merits.

Appearing for the respondents, Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Shoeb Alam were present.

The court, after hearing the parties, declined to issue a direction on the merits of the underlying proceedings. However, it clarified that the observations made by the High Court, particularly those concerning the petitioner's intention, would not prejudice the parties in the proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner and directed the authority to decide the respondents' maintainability applications within six weeks.