MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant any interim relief to the trust that runs the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra in its ₹1,000-crore defamation lawsuit against HDFC Bank and its CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan.HC refuses to gag HDFC Bank in ₹1,000-crore Lilavati trust defamation suitA single-judge bench of justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the bank’s statements were not defamatory and were “in fact based on a factually accurate foundation in explaining and defending a valid [loan] recovery process adopted in accordance with law”.In its defamation suit, the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (LKMMT) had accused HDFC Bank of falsely suggesting, in public statements made in June 2025, that the trust and a permanent trustee, Prashant Mehta, had defaulted on loans. The trust contended that the implications and imputations of such statements were derogatory, and were used to “lower their reputation” and “excite adverse opinions and feelings” among “right-thinking members of the society”.LKMMT claimed that neither the trust nor Mehta had borrowed any money from HDFC Bank, and that its statements were “half-truths” aimed at inflicting injury to their reputation. The trust added that the bank had roped Mehta into the recovery proceedings only in his capacity as legal representative of his late father, Kishor Mehta, and that his liability is limited to the extent of the estate, if any, he inherited.In its interim application, LKMMT sought to restrain HDFC Bank and its associates from making any defamatory statements regarding the trust’s financial disputes, and to direct all media channels to remove defamatory and libellous articles from all social media platforms.In its defence, HDFC Bank claimed that Prashant Mehta and his family members owed it a substantial sum that had not been repaid despite several orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and enforcement actions taken by the bank over the past two decades.After examining the DRT’s orders and multiple judicial proceedings, the court observed that the Mehta family made an active attempt to frustrate the recovery proceedings by filing multiple applications before the tribunal. It also noted that Prashant Mehta had “liberally used” the trust’s letterhead, its official social media handles and banners “to wage battles against HDFC Bank in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion”.The court held that the bank’s statements in this regard are prima facie “bona fide, legitimate and factually accurate” and do not constitute defamation, as alleged. It also observed that Mehta and his family members owe substantial amounts to HDFC Bank that have never been repaid.“The subject statements reflect a factually accurate position and fall within the realm of truthful speech, which was indeed necessitated only because of the sustained media campaign of articles against HDFC Bank and Jagdishan,” the court said.Referring to a press conference held by the Lilavati trust on June 7, 2025, under Mehta’s watch, the court noted that various scandalous statements were made about HDFC Bank and Jagdishan. The court clarified that an institutional response by the bank to this, with facts, “is a justifiable bona fide reaction that cannot be faulted”. The bank was constrained to release the statements “to clarify its position and to present its version of true and accurate facts to members of the society,” the court added.The bench concluded that the trust had not made out a strong prima facie case against HDFC Bank. Therefore, gagging the bank “would expose them to the risk of being unable to respond to continued attacks” by the trust, it said.Dismissing the suit, the bench imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the trust, payable to HDFC Bank within six weeks.