High Court may invoke plenary powers to direct criminal investigation ensuring protection of estate in testamentary jurisdiction.

The litigation concerns competing claims over the estate (valued at over Rs. 100 Crores) of Purvez Burjor Dalal, who died on 07.12.2011.

Respondent No. 1 propounded a Will dated 22.11.2010, while one Manek Sukhadwalla propounded a later Will dated 08.09.2011.

On 24.12.2013, the High Court appointed an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act (ISA), 1925.

The Administrator discovered that Sukhadwalla had transferred Rs. 17,08,147 to M/s. Amoha Traders and Rs. 15,00,000 to the Appellant Trust shortly after the testator's death.

Investigations revealed that the involved entities shared common addresses and contacts linked to a Jamsheed Panday, and that the Appellant Trust, dormant since 1943, was revived only in 2011.

Due to Sukhadwalla’s non-cooperation and alleged siphoning of funds, a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court invoked Article 215 of the Constitution to direct a court-monitored criminal investigation.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeals against this direction.

Section 247 of the ISA, 1925 establishes that an Administrator pendente lite is an officer/hand of the Court under its immediate control.

Article 215 of the Constitution designates High Courts as Superior Courts of Record possessing inherent and plenary powers to prevent abuse of process and protect property in custodia legis.

The decision in M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment Trading Pvt. Ltd. affirms the unlimited jurisdiction of High Courts to devise procedural rules where not prohibited.

Anthony C. Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan regarding the obligation of court officers to seek legal action for property preservation.

Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State regarding the Court’s power to use state agencies to investigate fraud.

The Court reasoned that while the primary role of a Probate Court is to determine a Will's genuineness, it cannot remain a "silent spectator" when an estate in custodia legis is being plundered.

The Court found that Section 269 of the ISA authorizes interference to protect property at risk of loss, and Section 300 grants the High Court concurrent jurisdiction with District Judges in this regard.

The Court rejected the "self-contained code" argument, stating that the ISA does not grant immunity for criminal breach of trust or forgery.

It noted the suspicious "handshake" transactions and the revival of a dormant trust coincided with the disputed Will, justifying an investigation to trace assets that the Administrator could not recover due to "stonewalling" and deceit.

The Court clarified that Section 340 CrPC was not the sole source of power here; the High Court exercised its broader constitutional mandate to uphold the administration of justice.

The Court ruled that no substantive prejudice is caused to the Appellants as they will have a full opportunity to defend themselves during the criminal process.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's jurisdiction to direct a criminal investigation; the Prothonotary was directed to submit a report, and the investigation authorities were ordered to proceed expeditiously.