Priya Kapur claims Delhi High Court cannot injunct Sunjay Kapur's overseas assets amid ongoing will dispute

In a hearing before the Delhi High Court, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Defendant No. 2, Master Azarias Kapur, opened with a critical jurisdictional objection that immediately reframed the scope of the plaintiffs’ case. Sibal reminded the Court that under Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, a partition suit may only deal with assets situated within India, and a court cannot pass orders — interim or final — concerning foreign immovable property.

He clarified that while the plaintiffs seek status quo over foreign assets, they have not answered the jurisdictional challenge at all, despite repeatedly referencing properties abroad in their arguments. Sibal stated:

More from Entertainment

Kis Kisko Pyaar Karoon 2 Movie Review: Kapil Sharma's comedy is powered by sharp timing and seamless performances 'Dhurandhar' Box-Office: Ranveer Singh and Aditya Dhar end week one on a thunderous Rs 218 crore as the spy drama sets new records

“You cannot seek injunctions or final relief over assets for which this Court has no jurisdiction. Partition of foreign property by metes and bounds is legally impossible and well-settled law.”

He added that he had been waiting for the plaintiffs’ counsel to address this central legal bar — but no response ever came. In a notable development, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani conceded, stating that he “partly agrees with what Mr. Sibal is saying” and sought to recast his case to be one seeking an injunction on Priya Kapur from acting in the Will in foreign jurisdictions. This concession significantly weakened the plaintiffs’ position, acknowledging the inherent legal limitations of their claims. The attempt to recast the case was opposed by senior counsel, Shyel Trehan, appearing for Priya Kapur, where she pointed out that the existing injunction sought had no whisper of the Will.

Mahesh Jethmalani stated verbatim in court: “It’s factually incorrect. Priya was never made the MD of RIPL. There was no swap, she was not even the director of the company. She was removed from AIPL on 31st of May 2023, but sought to acquire the position a day after Sunjay’s demise… Priya’s claim about maintaining a blended family and Karisma joining her for vacations and family dinners was all a public façade.”

During earlier hearings, Priya’s counsel placed on record corporate filings confirming that Priya voluntarily resigned from AIPL on 24th May 2023 and simultaneously became president of RIPL as part of a coordinated restructuring in which Sunjay also shifted his positions.

At the same time, the defence noted that Rani Kapur receives ₹21.5 lakh per month from aipl in addition to full travel, household and support expenses, none of which she disclosed when alleging concealment against Priya.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Anuradha Dutt, appearing for Executor Ms. Shradha Suri, forcefully halted yet another attempt by the plaintiffs to divert the proceedings toward the RK Family Trust. She reminded the Court that the present matter concerns only the Will and urged the Bench to refocus on its merits. “Please argue the Will, not the Trust,” she asserted. The Court agreed and directed Mr. Jethmalani not to drift from the issue.

Despite having expressly acknowledged that the suit under Order 2 Rule 2 challenges only the Will, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani attempted to question an email shared on 14 June and sought appointment of a receiver — neither of which appears in any written pleading. Dutt immediately objected, emphasising that no such prayer exists and that these points were being raised for the first time orally.

The Court noted the inconsistency, reinforcing that injunction proceedings cannot become a platform for shifting, unsupported claims.

Jethmalani, further raised concerns over the alleged Will introduced by Priya, arguing that executor Shradha Suri Marwah failed to comply with the Will’s mandatory directions. The Will required the executor to take custody of all monies, properties and assets and to initiate probate—an explicit requirement under clause 3. Yet Shradha initiated neither. Instead, on 24 June 2025, she wrote to Priya asking her to probate the Will, implying recognition of her own responsibilities. Jethmalani said this non-compliance casts serious doubt on the Will’s authenticity, especially since an executor cannot be appointed without prior consent—something Shradha’s counsel earlier claimed was never given.

Meanwhile, the legal conflict continues to intensify. Samaira and Kiaan, represented by their mother Karisma Kapoor as legal guardian, have joined hands with Sunjay Kapur’s mother and sister in questioning the validity of the will, setting the stage for a prolonged and high-profile courtroom battle.