Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 9 September 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant Rajesh K. Mehta and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (the Trust) vs. Respondent HDFC Bank Limited.
- Nature of Proceedings: Two Special Leave Petitions (SLP) – SLP(C) No. 25843/2026 (filed by Rajesh K. Mehta) and SLP(C) No. 28456/2026 (filed by the Trust) challenging a High Court order that granted Mr. Mehta permission to travel abroad for 120 days subject to a monetary security condition.
- High Court Order (16‑07‑2026): Granted travel permission but imposed a condition that the appellant deposit an additional security of Rs 7,50,00,000 (₹7.5 crore).
- Background Facts: The Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal‑II, Mumbai, on 22‑07‑2025 withdrew the arrest warrant and all other travel restrictions originally imposed on Mr. Mehta (original order dated 25‑10‑2023). The appellant argued that there is no legal bar to travel and that the High Court’s condition is excessive, especially since he has already deposited Rs 7,50,00,000 earlier and a total of Rs 12 crore has been paid/secured to date.
- Counsel Submissions: Senior counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Devdatt Kamat (for the appellant) contended that the High Court’s security condition is unwarranted. Senior counsel for HDFC Bank argued that the appellant had not presented correct facts and that the High Court’s order should stand.
- Court Observations: The Supreme Court noted that the DRT‑II order of 22‑07‑2025 benefits the appellant, removing any arrest or travel restriction. It also observed that the appellant is not a flight risk and has a history of returning to India after trips abroad.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court modified the security condition, reducing the amount from Rs 7,50,00,000 to Rs 3,00,00,000 (₹3 crore).
- The appellant must deposit the reduced security in the same manner as directed by the High Court, within three days prior to undertaking the proposed travel.
- The Court clarified that a return to India within the 120‑day period does not constitute full compliance; the outer limit of 120 days remains in force for any further travel.
- Directions to lower courts:
- The High Court of Bombay is directed to dispose of pending writ petitions W.P. No. 3802/2025 and W.P. (L) No. 40817/2025 within six months of receiving a copy of this order.
- The Presiding Officer, DRT‑II, Mumbai, is directed to dispose of the pending matter M.A. No. 119/2025 in R.P. No. 709/2004 within six months of receiving a copy of this order.
- Both appeals are disposed of in the terms above, and any pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Topics: Travel Permission, Security Deposit, Bank Litigation