The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision directing a court-monitored criminal investigation into alleged siphoning of funds from the estate of late Purvez Burjor Dalal, holding that a High Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not lose its constitutional and plenary powers merely because it is deciding probate proceedings.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed appeals filed by Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust and connected parties challenging the High Court’s order directing criminal investigation into suspicious transactions involving the deceased’s estate.
The dispute arose from competing claims over the estate of Purvez Burjor Dalal, a Parsi Zoroastrian resident of Mumbai who died on December 7, 2011, leaving behind movable and immovable properties estimated to exceed ₹100 crore. Two rival wills surfaced after his death. One will dated November 22, 2010 was propounded by Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer and her mother, while another will dated September 8, 2011 was put forward by Manek Dara Sukhadwalla, under which the entire estate was purportedly dedicated to charitable purposes.
As the competing testamentary claims proceeded before the Bombay High Court, an Administrator pendente lite was appointed under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act to safeguard the estate and identify its assets. During his inquiries, the Administrator discovered that Sukhadwalla had opened a bank account in the name of the estate and that significant amounts had been transferred shortly after the testator’s death. One transfer of ₹17.08 lakh was made to Amoha Traders Pvt. Ltd., while another transfer of ₹15 lakh was made to Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust.
The Administrator later reported what he described as disturbing findings. Allegations surfaced of a larger conspiracy involving Sukhadwalla and another individual, Jamsheed Minocher Panday, for siphoning estate funds through interconnected entities. Documents allegedly indicated that various entities, including the Trust, Amoha Traders, Kratos Energy and Canos Trading, shared common addresses, contact details and email IDs linked to Panday. Further suspicion arose from claims that the Trust, allegedly dormant for decades, had been revived around the same period as the execution of the disputed will.
The Administrator also complained of repeated non-cooperation and suppression of information despite multiple court directions. He reported failure to disclose bank accounts and alleged concealment of material information regarding estate properties and transactions.
The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court had concluded that ordinary civil remedies were inadequate in the circumstances and invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Administrator to prepare a criminal complaint and submit it through the High Court registry for investigation by Mumbai Police, with periodic progress reports to be filed before the Court.
The appellants challenged this direction, arguing that probate courts are restricted to examining the validity and genuineness of wills and cannot embark upon “roving and fishing inquiries” through criminal investigations. They also argued that the Indian Succession Act is a complete code and that the High Court had bypassed procedures prescribed under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that while a probate court’s primary role is to determine the validity of a will, the High Court cannot remain a silent spectator if it notices apparent fraud or attempts to dissipate estate assets.
The Court observed: “If the Court discovers that parties are employing deceit, suppressing bank accounts, and using shell trusts to siphon funds, it is entirely within its plenary jurisdiction to direct a police investigation to unearth the fraud.”
The Court also emphasized that an Administrator appointed under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act functions as an officer and “hand of the Court,” whose duty includes preserving estate property and taking necessary legal action for its protection.
Significantly, the Court rejected the argument that initiation of criminal investigation itself causes prejudice to the parties. It held that if criminal prosecution is ultimately initiated, the affected parties would have adequate opportunities to defend themselves in accordance with law.
Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court observed that the conduct of the parties revealed a “concerted, deceitful effort” to obstruct the Administrator and dissipate estate assets. It held that the Bombay High Court was justified in invoking its constitutional powers to ensure that the estate remained protected and that the truth behind the financial transactions was uncovered.
The Court accordingly dismissed all appeals and directed that if an investigation report had already been initiated pursuant to the High Court’s directions, the competent authorities should proceed expeditiously and continue filing progress reports before the High Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust Versus Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1392-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(S). 25107 Of 2025
Date: 25/05/2026
