Business
Bombay High Court Refuses Temporary Restraint in High-Profile Legal Dispute
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim application filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust seeking to restrain HDFC Bank and its top executives from making allegedly defamatory statements. The court observed that the statements in question appeared to be factually accurate and not defamatory.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an interim plea filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which had sought to restrain HDFC Bank, its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sashidhar Jagdishan, and others from making statements that the trust alleged were defamatory.
The interim application was part of a broader ₹1,000 crore defamation suit instituted by the trust against the bank. The trust had alleged that HDFC Bank and its senior executives issued statements to the media and published content on social media platforms that tarnished its reputation and that of its members.
A bench headed by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the application seeking temporary relief.
While rejecting the plea, the court observed that the statements referred to by the trust did not appear to be defamatory. The bench further noted that the remarks in question were, prima facie, factually accurate.
The ruling means that no interim restraint order has been imposed on HDFC Bank or its officials at this stage of the proceedings. However, the main defamation suit filed by the trust seeking damages of ₹1,000 crore remains pending before the court and may continue through the judicial process.
The dispute has attracted attention due to the stature of the parties involved. Lilavati Hospital, operated by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, is one of Mumbai’s prominent healthcare institutions, while HDFC Bank is among India’s largest private-sector lenders.
Legal experts note that courts generally grant interim injunctions in defamation matters only when a clear case of reputational harm through false statements is established. The Bombay High Court’s observations regarding the factual nature of the statements could prove significant as the broader litigation progresses.
Further hearings in the main suit are expected to determine the merits of the trust’s claim for damages and address the substantive issues raised by both sides.
