Armin R. Panthaky vs Rohinton Panthaky

ik-111294556 Bombay High Court 21 November 2024 • 33 min read

Judges (3)

B.P. Colabawalla Coram M.S. Sonak Delivered R.I. Chagla Coram

Counsel (7)

Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt & Caroe Firm Abhijit Sarwate Counsel Amicus Agnel Carneiro Counsel Intervener Jamsheed K. Master Counsel Amicus Prashant Tikare Counsel Appellant Sanober Nanavati Counsel Intervener Zenobia Shapoor Irani Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

Parsi Panchayat Intervener Armin R. Panthaky Appellant Rohinton Panthaky Respondent

Case Significance

Armin R. Panthaky vs Rohinton Panthaky is a Bombay High Court decision dated November 21, 2024 (citation: ik-111294556). Full Bench reference in a Parsi Suit appeal on whether Courts under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act (PMDA) have discretion to direct evidence to be recorded before a Court Commissioner, or whether evidence must only be recorded in the presence of delegates. The Full Bench (M.S. Sonak, B.P. Colabawalla, and R.I. Chagla JJ) held that the PMDA does not expressly or impliedly exclude CPC provisions on evidence recording, and Courts under PMDA have discretion to allow evidence before a Court Co The bench comprised Justices B.P. Colabawalla, M.S. Sonak and R.I. Chagla. The judgment was delivered by Justice M.S. Sonak. Counsel appearing: Abhijit Sarwate (amicus curiae), Agnel Carneiro (counsel for intervener), Jamsheed K. Master (amicus curiae), Prashant Tikare (counsel for appellant), Sanober Nanavati (counsel for intervener), Zenobia Shapoor Irani (counsel for appellant).

Summary

Full Bench reference in a Parsi Suit appeal on whether Courts under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act (PMDA) have discretion to direct evidence to be recorded before a Court Commissioner, or whether evidence must only be recorded in the presence of delegates. The Full Bench (M.S. Sonak, B.P. Colabawalla, and R.I. Chagla JJ) held that the PMDA does not expressly or impliedly exclude CPC provisions on evidence recording, and Courts under PMDA have discretion to allow evidence before a Court Commissioner — it is not compulsory that evidence be recorded only before delegates. The appeal was directed to be placed before an appropriate bench for disposal.

What was the outcome of Armin R. Panthaky vs Rohinton Panthaky?

Full Bench reference in a Parsi Suit appeal on whether Courts under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act (PMDA) have discretion to direct evidence to be recorded before a Court Commissioner, or whether ...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-111294556)