Bombay High Court to shortly hear HDFC Bank MD and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan's plea seeking quashing of FIR filed by Lilavati Trust.
The FIR filed with the Bandra police pursuant to a magisterial order accuses Jagdishan of accepting It accuses him of accepting a ₹2.05 crore bribe from the erstwhile trustees.
#HDFCBank #SashidharJagdishan #Lilavatitrust
The FIR filed with the Bandra police pursuant to a magisterial order accuses Jagdishan of accepting It accuses him of accepting a ₹2.05 crore bribe from the erstwhile trustees.
#HDFCBank #SashidharJagdishan #Lilavatitrust
A bench of Justices MS Karnik and NR Borkar is hearing the plea.
In the last hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Desai appearing for Jagdishan argued that the FIR was lodged with malice only to scuttle the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against business belonging to a late trustee.
Further, he argued that the complainant trust should have followed the appropriate steps and should have filed complaint initially with the local police and then with the superior officer if he failed to take cognisance before approaching the magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
He further argued that the complinant was filed by the power of attorney holder of a present trustee Prashant Mehta. The POA holder was appointed long before Mehta even became part of the trust.
He further alleged Mehta of using the trust for his perosonal objectives.
In the last hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Desai appearing for Jagdishan argued that the FIR was lodged with malice only to scuttle the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against business belonging to a late trustee.
Further, he argued that the complainant trust should have followed the appropriate steps and should have filed complaint initially with the local police and then with the superior officer if he failed to take cognisance before approaching the magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
He further argued that the complinant was filed by the power of attorney holder of a present trustee Prashant Mehta. The POA holder was appointed long before Mehta even became part of the trust.
He further alleged Mehta of using the trust for his perosonal objectives.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda arguing for the trust.
He submits that any irregularity in procedure (Here, the affidavit submitted with the complaint) doesn't mean there is failure of Justice.
He reads out precedents that affirms his stance.
Court: just crystalise your submissions.
He submits that any irregularity in procedure (Here, the affidavit submitted with the complaint) doesn't mean there is failure of Justice.
He reads out precedents that affirms his stance.
Court: just crystalise your submissions.
He says that an order under Section 156(3) doesn't lead to failure of Justice.
Sr. Adv Ponda : My friends have not even pleaded what prejudice was caused by the order.
Sr. Adv Ponda : My friends have not even pleaded what prejudice was caused by the order.
Sr. Adv Ponda: there has to be a pleading to the effect that the irregularity has caused failure of Justice which is not given in the case.
Court: we will continue tomorrow, at 1 o'clock..
Court: we will continue tomorrow, at 1 o'clock..
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
