[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prashant Kishor Mehta vs Param Bir Singh Ips Retd on 22 May, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
PDP 3-WPL-17224-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17224 OF 2026
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2026.05.22
22:46:15
+0530 Prashant Kishor Mehta .. Petitioner
Vs.
Param Bir Singh [IPS Retd.] & Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate with Shoeb Alam, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Ziyad Madon, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Vivek Dwivedi,
Ms. Amruta Thakur, Ankur Saigal, Mr. Tarun Mehta, Ms. Minal
Chandnani i/by Naik Naik & Co., Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Senior Advocate a/w Joel Carlos and Utsav
Trivedi (Through V.C.) and Anukul Seth, Advocates for the
Respondent No.1.
Mr. Parineet Saratkar (through V.C.) i/by SSP Legal, Advocates for
Respondent No.3-SBI.
...
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
(Through V.C.)
DATE : 22nd MAY 2026.
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ.:
Before we consider the rival submissions, this would be
pertinent to mention that on 7 th May 2026 the following order was
passed in a batch of petitions:-
"On 5th May, 2022, the following order was passed by this Court :
"These matters have come up on Board by virtue of the
administrative direction given by one of us (Chief Justice) when
a copy of the order dated 20 th April 2026 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
Nos.13787-13788 of 2026 was placed before the Chief Justice.
It was pursuant to a direction given by the Chief Justice that the
Registry collected necessary information of all pending matters
PDP 3-WPL-17224-2026.doc
in which one of the parties was related to Lilavati Hospital
Trust. The Registry also apprised the Chief Justice that as many
as 13 Hon'ble Judges of this High Court have recused
themselves and declined to hear one or the other matter. It was
in this background that a Special Bench has been constituted
for hearing the matters which are listed on Board from S.
Nos.901 to 929. We are informed that some of these matters are
pending before the Single Bench. A decision regarding posting of
such matters may be taken by the Chief Justice on
administrative side. We have asked the learned counsels
appearing in these matters to provide the details of any other
matter which has been left out and does not appear on Board
today.
2. However, we are constrained to indicate that these matters
may not be heard by this Bench.
3. Place these matters before a Bench of which one of us
(Suman Shyam, J.) is not a member.
4. Post these matters tomorrow, that is, 6 th May 2026."
2. As indicated in the order dated 5 th May 2026, these matters were
directed to be heard by a Bench specially constituted for hearing these
matters. As such a direction was issued on the administrative side by the
Chief Justice pursuant to the order dated 20 th April 2026 passed in Special
Leave Petition (C) Nos.13787-13788 of 2026.
3. Mr. Devdatt Kamat, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.40817 of 2025 submits that the petitioner
was permitted in the past to travel abroad where his family resides.
However, Mr. Kevic Setalvad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
HDFC Bank states that there were serious violations of the conditions to
travel abroad by the petitioner and, in respect thereof, the Bank has filed
contempt petitions.
4. As we can gather, just on a glance at the "Numbering" of the writ
petition, this petition is still in defects.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the HDFC Bank seeks two
weeks' time to file reply-affidavit.
6. Mr. Devdatt Kamat, the learned senior counsel appearing for Rajesh
Mehta, on instructions from Mr. Utsav Trivedi, the learned vice counsel
seeks permission to withdraw Writ Petition (L) No.10818 of 2025 but this
prayer is opposed on behalf of the HDFC Bank which is represented
through Mr. Kevic Setalvad, the learned senior counsel.
7. In view thereof, it is indicated that Contempt Petition (L)No.41943 of
2025 in Interim Application No.4454 of 2025 and Contempt Petition No.9 of
2026 in Writ Petition No.1760 of 2024 shall be taken up together for
hearing alongwith the afore-mentioned writ petitions.
PDP 3-WPL-17224-2026.doc
8. There are as many as four Income Tax Appeals out of which Income Tax
Appeal No.1069 of 2020 is said to be lead matter, a decision on which
shall have a bearing on Income Tax Appeal No.66 of 2024. Mr. Prakash.
C. Chhotaray, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue in
Income Tax Appeal No.1069 of 2020 states that there were large scale
irregularities found in the course of the search and, as a consequence
thereof, the registration of the Trust was cancelled.
9. We find that in other matters also, there are serious allegations by the
Trustees and former Trustees levelled against each other regarding the
large scale misappropriation of funds. There are also criminal proceedings
filed against the Trustees and the former Trustees.
10. In view of the fact that the parties are engaged in bitter litigations in at
least 31 matters and, as noticed above, there are serious allegations of
misappropriation of funds, both before the Division Bench and Single
Judge, we have formed an opinion that the functioning of the Trust seems
to have been seriously hampered. Therefore, we are proposing to appoint
a Committee of the Administrators.
11. Parties to respond within four weeks, that is, after vacation. Liberty to
the petitioner represented through Mr.Devdatt Kamat, the learned senior
counsel, to mention for any urgent relief before the Vacation Bench.
12. Let the pleadings be completed within four weeks in all matters.
13. Post these matters on 12th June 2026."
2. The petitioner filed a praecipe dated 13th May 2026 presumably
availing of the liberty to move the Vacation Bench as indicated in
paragraph no.11 of the said order. It is stated in the praecipe that
Hon'ble Justice Gautam A. Ankhad and Hon'ble Justice Shreeram V.
Shirsat have recused themselves in the past from hearing the petition
filed by this petitioner. A copy of the order dated 15 th April 2026 was
also circulated along with the praecipe dated 13 th May 2026, in which
following reasons are stated for urgent listing of the matter:
"....The Impugned Order was passed during the interim moratorium under
Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(C.P.(IB)/52/MB/2025 - Phoenix ARC v. Petitioner, pending before the
Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai), which statutorily stays all legal proceedings in
respect of any debt, and without adjudicating the Petitioner's pending
maintainability Application challenging the locus of a third-party intervener.
By virtue of the impugned order, injunction has been passed against the
Petitioner restraining from creating third party rights with respect to his
PDP 3-WPL-17224-2026.doc
alleged assets. The reason why this Impugned Order needs to be stayed is
because this will gravely prejudice the ongoing project at Lilavati Hospital,
Gift city, Ahmedabad. Lilavati foundation has availed loan facility from
Bank of Maharashtra for ongoing project in which the bank has been
following up with the Petitioner about this injunction order as the Petitioner
is a shareholder in the Lilavati foundation and therefore there is imminent
threat of the loan facility being recalled by the bank and freeze existing
credit limits, which would bring the hospital's operations to a complete
standstill, causing grave and irreparable harm to the Petitioner. Additionally,
the matter cannot be listed before the Judges presiding next week, as
Justice Gautam Ankhad is not before me. We have been informed that in the
praecipe submitted yesterday, this Hon'ble Court has indicated third week
from 25 May subject to bench approval. However, His Lordship Justice
Shreeram V. Shirsat, who would be presiding in this week is also "not before
me". Order dated 15 April 2026 passed in separate writ petition indicating
same is enclosed. Week thereafter, which is 5 June 2026 onwards, time for
compliance in terms of Impugned Order will expire on 3 June 2026 which
will render the petition and reliefs infructuous. Hence the urgency."
3. On 14th May 2026, this matter was listed before the Vacation
Bench when the following order was passed by the Court:
"1. The proceedings not to be placed before the Bench of which one of us
(Justice Sandesh D. Patil), is a member."
4. It was in this background that this Bench has assembled to
hear this matter and other two writ petitions filed by Rajesh Mehta.
5. At the time of hearing, a Preliminary objection to the
maintainability of this writ petition has been taken by Mr. Atmaram
Nadkarni, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
no.1. The submission made at the Bar is that no person should be
permitted to circumvent the statutory regime and approach the writ
Court and, that too, in cases where pre-deposit is the mandate of the
statute. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.1 refers to the decision in "Assistant Collector of
Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. &
Ors." AIR 1985 SC 330 and submits that the petitioner has a remedy
to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery
PDP 3-WPL-17224-2026.doc
Appellate Tribunal as well against the impugned order dated 6 th May
2026.
6. Mr. Dinyar Madon, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
has, however, made submissions on locus standi of the respondent
no.1 to move Interim Application No.103 of 2026 in R.P. No.433 of
2004. It is submitted that a serious objection was taken to locus of
the respondent no.1 before the Recovery Officer but such objection
has been rejected without any reason and an order in the nature of
interim injunction has been passed by the Recovery Officer
restraining the petitioner from creating any 3 rd party interest in
respect of the assets, movable and immovable, allegedly belonging to
him.
7. The learned senior counsel further states that the Recovery
Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 6 th May 2026 in
view of the interim-Moratorium which came into immediate effect
under section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, after
an application was filed by Phoenix Arc Private Limited. Such an
objection was raised before the Recovery Officer but the order dated
6th May 2026 has been passed by the Recovery Officer which is
patently illegal and without jurisdiction.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no.1 was a disgruntled employee of the Trust who has
been recently removed from there and he has thereafter started
making frivolous complaints against the Trust, Trustees and others.
He is involved in serious crimes in relation to some other incident and
is presently on bail.
9. In view of the rival submissions made before the Court and the
objection on maintainability of the writ petition and keeping in mind
the liberty granted by the Recovery Officer vide order dated 6 th May
PDP 3-WPL-17224-2026.doc
2026 to the effect that any party aggrieved by the impugned ad-
interim injunction shall be at liberty to approach the Forum by filing
an appropriate application, we are not inclined to pass any interim
order in favor of the petitioner and the matter shall be finally heard on
12th June 2026.
10. We may further clarify that we are not inclined to grant any
interim order in favor of the petitioner also for the reason that
disclosure of assets and liabilities of the parties before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal shall facilitate the recovery proceedings.
11. The petitioner to file his response to the objection as to
maintainability of the writ petition raised by the respondent no.1. The
respondent no.1 may also file his response to the objection taken by
the petitioner as recorded in this order.
12. Post the matter on 12th June 2026 under the heading "For Final
Disposal".
13. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order, digitally
signed by the Senior Private Secretary.
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
