A High Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction can invoke its plenary powers under Art.215 Const. of India to direct a court-monitored criminal investigation where the estate is allegedly being siphoned off and ordinary civil remedies prove inadequate.

on


Facts

The dispute concerned the estate of Purvez Burjor Dalal, a wealthy Parsi bachelor who died on 07.12.2011 leaving assets valued at over Rs.100 crores. Two rival Wills surfaced. One Will dated 22.11.2010 was propounded by the respondents, while another dated 08.09.2011 was propounded by Manek Dara Sukhadwalla, who claimed to be sole executor and beneficiary for charitable purposes. Testamentary suits were instituted regarding both Wills.

During pendency of proceedings, the Bombay High Court appointed an Administrator pendente lite under S.247 Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Administrator discovered that large sums had been transferred from the estate account to private entities including the appellant Trust and Amoha Traders. Reports filed by the Administrator alleged diversion of estate funds, fabrication of documents, concealment of accounts, and collusion between the executor and associated entities.

The learned Single Judge found the conduct of the executor and associated entities “obstructive” and “deceitful” and, invoking Art.215 Const. of India, directed a court-monitored criminal investigation. The Division Bench upheld the order. The appellants challenged the same before the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

(a) Whether a Testamentary Court can invoke plenary jurisdiction to direct a criminal investigation in proceedings relating to probate disputes.

(b) Whether the High Court bypassed the procedure under S.340 CrPC by directing investigation through police authorities.

(c) Whether such directions exceeded the scope of testamentary jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court held that although testamentary jurisdiction ordinarily concerns proof of the Will, the High Court “does not cease to be a Constitutional Court of record” while exercising such jurisdiction (Paras 27.1, 29). The Court emphasized that the Administrator was appointed to protect the estate and recover diverted assets.

(b) The Court noted that the Administrator’s inquiry revealed suspicious transfers, alleged fabrication of documents, common links between entities receiving estate funds, and persistent non-cooperation by the executor despite repeated court directions (Paras 29–32). The Court observed that ordinary civil remedies were insufficient in the peculiar facts of the case.

(c) Approving the Division Bench reasoning, the Court held that the impugned order was not a “stand-alone” criminal direction but part of a continuing effort to safeguard the estate and trace siphoned funds (Paras 20, 31–33). The investigation was intended to assist the Testamentary Court in giving effect to the true Will of the testator.

(d) The Court rejected the argument that the High Court had exceeded jurisdiction under S.340 CrPC, holding that the directions stemmed from the High Court’s inherent and plenary powers under Art.215 Const. of India to prevent abuse of process and ensure proper administration of justice (Paras 15, 27.6, 32).

(e) The Court further held that no actual prejudice was caused to the appellants since any future criminal prosecution would independently follow due process and afford full opportunity of defence (Paras 21, 33).

Held

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s order directing a court-monitored criminal investigation into the alleged siphoning and diversion of estate assets. The appeals were dismissed.

Ratio

A High Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction retains its plenary powers as a Constitutional Court under Art.215 Const. of India and may direct a criminal investigation to protect an estate and prevent abuse of process where ordinary civil remedies are inadequate and serious allegations of diversion of estate assets emerge (Paras 29–33).

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 540
Decided on: 25 May 2026
Case Title: Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale J.