More Stories

Informist, Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2025

NEW DELHI – The Bombay High Court Wednesday rejected Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust's plea to recover INR 172.10 million from Lilavati Hospital founder's son Niket Mehta, noting that the trust had not obtained permission from the charity commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 before filing the suit. The trust, which runs Lilavati Hospital in Bandra, Mumbai, was represented by trustee Charu Mehta and others.

If persons having an interest in any public trust intend to file a suit for recovering money from the trustee, they shall apply to the charity commissioner in writing for his consent, said the high court, noting the sections in the 1950 Act. After hearing the parties and making such enquiries, the charity commissioner may, within six months from the date on which the application was made, grant or refuse his consent to the institution of such a suit, the court added. It allowed an application by Niket Mehta seeking rejection of the trust's recovery suit.

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust said Niket Mehta was its permanent trustee from 2001 to 2023. The recovery of the amount in the suit proceedings was sought towards compensation for use of a flat by Niket Mehta in the trust's hospital building as his residence from 2007 to 2015 and for use of office from 2007 to 2009.

The petitioner argued that Niket Mehta, along with former illegal trustees, had usurped Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust's funds of over INR 18 billion and that a first information report had been filed in one such case of alleged misappropriation. The trust argued that Mehta had occupied its properties illegally during the disputed period, for which it was seeking compensation. Since his occupation of the properties was admittedly illegal and unauthorised, the petitioner maintained that permission from the charity commissioner was not required to file the recovery suit.

The high court, after reviewing the documents presented before it, said that it was prima facie clear the petitioner had described and treated Mehta as a permanent trustee of the Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust while seeking recovery of compensation for his occupation of the properties. If Nikit Mehta was a trespasser, there was no need for Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust to address him as a trustee in its suit, the court added. End

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Subhojit Sarkar

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

Informist Media Tel +91 (22) 6985-4000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.