The legal battle surrounding the Will of the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur has captured significant attention, especially due to its ties to his children with actress Karisma Kapoor, Samaira and Kiaan. Recently, the case has gained more complexity in the Delhi High Court as new controversies have surfaced about Priya Kapur’s defense.
Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Samaira and Kiaan, challenged Priya’s claim that her departure from Automotive India Pvt Ltd (AIPL) in 2023 was a mutual “position swap” with Sunjay. Instead, he argued that her removal on May 31, 2023, was due to marital issues, stating that corporate records show she did not become the Managing Director of Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd (RIPL) or hold any position there.
Jethmalani emphasized, “Priya was never made the MD of RIPL… She was removed from AIPL.” This statement contradicts her narrative of a harmonious corporate restructuring and raises questions about her claims of maintaining good relations with Karisma’s children.
The movements following Sunjay’s death in June 2023 have also come under scrutiny. Records indicate that Priya was appointed as a director of AIPL just a day after his passing and quickly reinstated herself as Managing Director within a week. Jethmalani remarked that this pattern suggests opportunism rather than continuity, arguing, “She sought control only after his passing.”
The timeline of these corporate changes aligns suspiciously with the emergence of a contested Will, which plays a crucial role in determining the legal rights of Sunjay’s heirs, including those of Karisma’s children.
Adding to the complications, the executor named in the Will, Shradha Suri Marwah, has failed to seek probate or manage Sunjay’s assets as required. Jethmalani stated that an executor cannot pick and choose which aspects of a Will to enforce. The court also learned that Shradha claimed to have “deleted” a vital email attachment related to the Will, even though the email itself was available as evidence.
“You cannot delete the attachment without deleting the email,” Jethmalani pointed out, highlighting what he termed an “impossible explanation” concerning the missing document that should have been included in previous correspondence.
As the case is set to reconvene on December 22, the court will continue to evaluate discrepancies about Priya’s corporate roles, her actions following Sunjay’s death, and the mysterious missing attachment—issues now central to the dispute, which holds significant implications for Sunjay Kapur’s children, his legacy, and the businesses he led.
