Sunjay Kapur Inheritance: Foreign Assets Vs Priya Kapur's Company Exit Dominate Delhi HC Hearing

The Delhi High Court hearing in the inheritance dispute involving the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur was dominated by jurisdiction over his foreign assets and the nature of his wife Priya Kapur’s corporate exit from Aureus Investments Pvt Ltd in 2023.

Priya Kapur argued that the court cannot stop her from claiming Sunjay Kapur’s US-UK assets, and that such matters must be determined by the courts in those foreign jurisdictions. The side representing Sunjay’s former wife Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira and Kiaan, argued over the authenticity of the purported will and challenged Priya’s claims of an orderly corporate transition suggesting instead that her reacquisition of control over the company, Aureus Investments Pvt Ltd (AIPL), occurred

rapidly and opportunistically immediately following their father’s death.

Arguments were also raised regarding the executor’s failure to fulfil their mandatory duties under the alleged will and a highly suspicious incident involving a “deleted email” attachment critical to the case.

WHAT DID PRIYA KAPUR SAY?

Priya Kapur and her minor son contended that the Delhi High Court “does not have jurisdiction to injunct them from dealing with foreign assets in the UK and the US”.

Her counsel submitted that foreign assets are a matter of foreign jurisdiction, and the high court cannot stop them from seeking title of Sunjay’s immovable properties abroad. Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, representing the minor son, concurred, arguing that a status quo order on immovable assets in the US and UK must be determined by the courts of jurisdiction where the property is situated.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Karisma Kapoor’s children, challenged the premise. He argued that the court could pass an order restraining Priya Kapur from “misusing the (alleged) forged will” to seek title of the properties located abroad.

The children are seeking to restrain Priya from alienating Sunjay’s assets and have challenged the authenticity of the purported will.

WHAT DID THE OTHER SIDE SAY?

Jethmalani, meanwhile, argued that Priya Kapur’s removal as managing director of AIPL on May 31, 2023, was an “ouster, not a ‘position swap'”, dismantling a key plank of her defence.

He characterised the removal as resulting from a serious marital breakdown. He said it was “factually incorrect” that Priya was moved to Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd (RIPL) while Sunjay took her AIPL role, asserting: “There was no swap, she was not even the director of the company.”

He produced records from the ministry of corporate affairs to support the argument that she was never managing director or director of RIPL. He argued that her rapid reoccupation of power after Sunjay’s demise was a calculated “post-death power grab”.

Sunjay Kapur died on June 12, and Jethmalani noted that only a day later, on June 13, Priya was appointed a director of AIPL, and by June 20, she had reinstated herself as managing director.

“She was not in control when Sunjay was alive,” Jethmalani argued. “She sought control only after his passing.”

Sunjay’s contested will also came into play, with Jethmalani questioning the conduct of the named executor, Shardha Suri Marwah, who failed to probate it or take control of assets. The court heard arguments concerning the alleged “highly suspicious suppression” of a key attachment related to the will.

While Marwah claimed she “deleted” an email attachment containing the will, Jethmalani argued, “You cannot delete the attachment without deleting the email.” He pointed out that the email itself was produced in court.

Justice Jyoti Singh concluded hearing arguments on the interim injunction application and directed both parties to file written submissions. The case is listed for further consideration on December 22.

(With agency inputs)