Mumbai: In a temporary relief, the Bombay High Court has restrained the Charity Commissioner`s office from removing the name of Pramod Mehta, Trustee of Lilavati Hospital, from the Trust register until June 13.
The order was passed by Justice Nitin Jamdar, who heard a petition filed by Mehta challenging the April 5 order of the Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC) removing him as trustee of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta medical trust which runs 315-bedded multi-speciality Lilavati Hospital in suburban Bandra.
The JCC had removed Mehta as Trustee on a complaint filed by his relative and Trustee Charuben Mehta. The JCC order said Mehta was being removed as "he had a conviction against him for offence of moral turpitude in Belgium."
Being aggrieved, Mehta moved a civil court which refused to grant a stay on April 5 order of JCC while hearing his appeal. Mehta then filed a petition in the High Court which recently granted him temporary relief till June 13, the next date of hearing.
Pramod Mehta, younger brother of former CEO of Lilavati Hospital late Vijay Mehta, is locked in a family feud over the control of the Rs 900 crore hospital.
While granting relief to Mehta, the Court, however, directed that he would not operate any bank accounts of the Trust. The Court also ordered that he would not be party to any decision making process which has financial consequences.
The Court held that in respect of other decisions, the Board of Trustees of Lilavati Hospital can transact business without involving Mehta and if the Trustee chose to involve him in the decision making process other than financial matters, then those decisions will be subject to the final outcome of the application pending before the Civil Court.
The Court, however, gave liberty to Mehta to move the vacation court in case any emergent situation arose.
Mehta`s Counsel Prateek Sekseria prayed that the order of the JCC be stayed till the petition was argued on merits.
However, Mahesh Jethmalani, Counsel for Respondent Charuben Mehta, said the order removing the petitioner as a Trustee had already come into effect and he would be able to demonstrate from the order of JCC that he was rightly removed.