Supreme Court Asks Bombay High Court To Expedite Pending Applications In Ex-Lilavati Trustee's Suit

On 20 August, the Supreme Court requested the Bombay High Court to take up and dispose of pending applications in a suit filed by Rajesh Mehta, former Permanent Trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, challenging his removal from the post.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's interim order dated 7 August, as the matter remained pending before it, but requested the High Court to hear the pending applications one by one, preferably on a day-to-day basis, and dispose of them. The judges held:

"...we dispose of this special leave petition with a request to the High Court to take up the pending applications one-by-one, preferably on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same. The sequence or priority assigned in taking up the pending applications will be decided by the learned Presiding Judge. In this regard, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case,"

The dispute arose after resolutions dated 16 January and 16 February 2026 removed Mehta as a Permanent Trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, a public charitable trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

Mehta instituted a suit before the Bombay High Court on 18 February 2026 challenging his removal. He argued that his removal was contrary to the Trust Deed and principles of natural justice, as he had neither been issued notice nor given an opportunity of being heard before the resolutions were passed.

He further contended that the other trustees could not remove a Permanent Trustee and that the ultimate power to remove or continue such a trustee rested with the Charity Commissioner after following due process.

On 18 February, the High Court found an arguable case for urgent protection, issued notice to the defendants and directed that any further steps pursuant to the two removal resolutions would remain subject to its orders.

Several interim applications were subsequently filed by both sides, including an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of Mehta's plaint. Mehta also filed an interim application seeking an injunction.

Mehta then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's 7 August order, apprehending that his injunction application would not be decided amid the multiple interim applications filed by the other side.

While declining to interfere with the pending proceedings, the Top Court requested the Bombay High Court to take up the applications one by one, preferably on a day-to-day basis, and dispose of them, leaving the sequence and priority to be decided by the Presiding Judge. It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the case.

For Petitioner: Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate, Utsav Trivedi, Manini Roy, Sanjana Rai, Anudatt Dubey, Harsh Pandey, Tas Law, AOR

For Respondents: Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Mr. Dakshesh Vyas, Adv. Mr. Dikshat Mehra, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Minal Chandnani, Adv. Mr. Vivek Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jagiasi, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Naved, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput, Adv., Anushree Kapooria, Adv. Mr. Naman Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Mr. Dakshesh Vyas, Adv. Mr. Monish Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Dikshat Mehtra, Adv. Ms. Minal Chandnani, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR