Case Name: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 25107‑25109 of 2025) – Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors.
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.
Case/Order No.: Not separately numbered; the appeals relate to the common final judgment and order dated 16 July 2024 of the Bombay High Court.
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026.
Period of Dispute: Estate of the deceased testator Purvez Burjor Dalal (died 07 December 2011); alleged mis‑appropriations occurred in March‑April 2012; High Court investigation order dated 21 December 2018; High Court judgment dated 16 July 2024.
Parties Involved
Appellant: Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust (charitable trust).
Respondents: Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Ors. (including the late Villy Pirojsha Avasia), Manek Dara Sukhadwalla (executor under the 08‑09‑2011 Will), Jamsheed Minocher Panday (also known as Jimmy Panday), Amoha Traders Private Limited, Kratos Energy, Canos Trading, Kotak Mahindra Bank (bank where the estate account was opened).
Court‑appointed Officer: Jonathan Solomon – Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Regulatory/Investigative Authority: Commissioner of Police, Mumbai (to receive the criminal complaint and nominate officers for investigation).
Issues / Allegations / Violations
Alleged diversion of estate funds: Rs 17,08,147 transferred on 24 March 2012 to Amoha Traders Pvt. Ltd.; Rs 15,00,000 transferred on 11 April 2012 to the Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust.
Claim of a conspiracy between Sukhadwalla and Jamsheed Panday to siphon estate assets through shell entities (Amoha Traders, Kratos Energy, Canos Trading) and a dormant trust revived in 2011.
Non‑cooperation by Sukhadwalla and associated entities in disclosing bank accounts, assets, and property details.
Core legal question: Whether the Bombay High Court, while exercising testamentary jurisdiction, could invoke its inherent and plenary powers (Article 215) to direct a criminal investigation, bypassing the procedural requirements of Section 340 of the CrPC and the self‑contained nature of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Findings & Observations
The Supreme Court held that a High Court, even when sitting in testamentary jurisdiction, retains its constitutional inherent and plenary powers and may order a criminal investigation to prevent abuse of process and protect the estate.
The Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon and Fuerst Day Lawson cases, stating those precedents do not preclude a court‑recorded investigation where fraud is evident.
The Court affirmed that the Administrator, as an officer of the court, is empowered under Section 247 ISA to take all reasonable steps for preservation of the estate, including seeking criminal investigation when civil remedies are inadequate.
The Court found no actual or substantive prejudice to the appellants; any criminal prosecution would afford them full opportunity to defend themselves.
The observations of the High Court were deemed part of a series of orders aimed at safeguarding the estate, not stand‑alone directives.
Penalties / Settlements / Directions
No monetary penalty was imposed on any party.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s order directing the Administrator to file a criminal complaint.
No costs were awarded; the appeals were dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Corrective Actions & Future Obligations
The Administrator (Jonathan Solomon) is to file a criminal complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.
The police are to nominate a team of officers, conduct a thorough investigation, and submit fortnightly progress reports to the High Court.
All parties, including the Trust and Amoha Traders, must cooperate with the investigation and provide required disclosures.
The investigation’s findings will be shared with the Testamentary Court to aid in the final resolution of the estate dispute.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 16 July 2024 and the subsequent order dated 21 December 2018.
All three appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 25107‑25109 of 2025) were dismissed.
No order as to costs was made; pending applications, if any, were also dismissed.
The direction for a court‑monitored criminal investigation remains in force, and the investigation authority must proceed expeditiously as per the High Court’s directives.
