A Mumbai sessions court has dismissed revision applications filed by Ayushman Mehta, Nimesh Sheth and Chetan Mehta in the Lilavati trust case, allowing a Bandra Police investigation into allegations of financial misconduct and harassment involving the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust to proceed.
The applicants had challenged an order passed by a judicial magistrate directing Bandra Police to investigate the allegations. The trust, represented by Prashant Mehta through power of attorney holder Dinanath Sawant, had alleged that individuals acting as trustees attempted to siphon off crores of rupees in cash, leaving the trust in severe financial difficulty.
The dispute is linked to a complex chain of financial and recovery proceedings. According to the complaint, funds had been borrowed from Global Trust Bank, which later merged with Oriental Bank of Commerce, United Bank of India and ultimately Punjab National Bank. The debt was subsequently assigned by Punjab National Bank to Beautiful Group.
The source report said Beautiful Group entered into consent terms involving Splendor Gems handing over 14 blank cheques to Phoenix Arc. Consortium banks later auctioned properties for recovery through an officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The trust alleged that continuing execution proceedings and related legal actions created conflicting documentation and were used to obstruct legitimate trustees.
The complainant also alleged that the prolonged litigation and intimidation formed part of a conspiracy against the trust and members of the Mehta family, including Kishor Mehta and Rajesh Mehta. These allegations have not been established in court and are to be examined through the police investigation.
The trust first submitted complaints to the senior inspector of Bandra police station on January 25, 2025, and sent copies to senior police officials in the days that followed. After the police did not initiate action or register a case, the trust approached the judicial magistrate. A police report obtained by the magistrate stated that no action had been taken because of an alleged lack of evidence.
The magistrate nevertheless directed the police to investigate, following which formal criminal cases were registered in late May 2025. The applicants argued that the dispute was civil in nature, concerned trust accounts and had not complied with mandatory legal requirements.
Additional Sessions Judge Kunal Dhanaji Jadhav rejected that challenge. The judge held that the complainant had filed the required affidavit, approached senior police officials before moving the magistrate and complied with the relevant legal provisions. The court concluded that the magistrate’s order was within jurisdiction and required no interference.
The dismissal means the Bandra Police investigation can continue. The court’s order does not determine whether the allegations are true; those issues will be addressed during the investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings.
