The Delhi High Court raised doubts on missing records, digital gaps, and custody lapses in the disputed Will of Sunjay Kapur. Key exchanges between parties, including Nayar’s remark “I know it’s too insignificant,” added intensity to the high-stakes inheritance battle.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard the high-profile inheritance dispute involving the estate of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, with Justice Jyoti Singh placing the disputed Will under close judicial scrutiny.
The Court raised doubts on missing records, unexplained timelines, digital inconsistencies, and procedural gaps relating to the Will’s drafting, execution, attestation, and custody.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the children of Karishma Kapoor, argued that there is still no clarity on who drafted the Will. He highlighted concerns surrounding the second attesting witness, Nitin Sharma, who was appointed to the board of AIPL shortly after Sunjay Kapur’s death.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Priya Kapur, argued and refuted such claims.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani argued that the digital file of the Will was also found stored on his computer, yet no communication or note exists to show that Sunjay Kapur ever discussed the Will with him.
Jethmalani submitted that this combination of proximity, post-death elevation, and absence of any record
“deepens doubts about the Will’s provenance.”
The Court also noted that the digital trail relied upon requires proper authorship verification, metadata examination, and formal certification, observing that screenshots and informal references cannot replace legally admissible proof.
The Court further raised concerns regarding the unexplained movement of the original Will. A scanned copy was said to have been circulated electronically while the physical original surfaced later with a different individual, with no clear record explaining how it changed hands.
Justice Singh remarked that in high-value estates, any break in the chain of custody inevitably invites judicial suspicion.
Jethmalani supported this by pointing out that there is still no coherent timeline explaining when Kapur last held the original, when it was first shared or scanned, and how it ultimately reached the present proponent.
Another issue noted by the Court was the attesting witnesses’ failure to specify the exact time and place of execution, offering only a broad reference to “Gurgaon.” Justice Singh commented that such omissions can constitute suspicious circumstances, especially when the Will involves a substantial estate and significant corporate interests.
The courtroom also examined broader financial disclosures, where Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya Sachdev Kapur, addressed allegations raised by the opposing side.
He said:
“What they are saying is that my deceased husband used to get a salary of 60 crores. The second surprising thing that the mother id not disclose is that she is receiving a salary of 12 lakh from AIPL prior to his death and even after his death as well. All expenses which were borne by my husband are still being done.”
He said,
“So much for step-daughterly treatment,”
Nayar asserted:
“I have filed a detailed list of assets, and every transaction is in the list of assets… No money has been moved abroad.”
He described the allegations as
“baseless and reckless.”
When questioned about the omission of certain items, Nayar stated:
“They have not disclosed A rolex watch…..”
Justice Singh addressed him by saying:
“My Nayar”,
to which he responded:
“I know its too insignificant.”
He further clarified that one of the bank accounts flagged by the challengers had never been functional, stating:
“It has been non functional since the year 2020 when it was opened.”
Justice Singh also questioned the filing of the Will and related financial documents in sealed cover, reiterating that affidavits, once relied upon, cannot ordinarily be shielded from scrutiny. The Court expressed concern that repeated reliance on sealed covers could undermine transparency in probate proceedings.
The Bench also queried whether certain explanations, including those regarding corporate restructuring and asset handling after Kapur’s death, were being stated only during oral arguments without documentary support.
Justice Singh firmly stated that only materials formally placed on record can be considered and that oral assertions cannot substitute documentary proof.
For the Plaintiffs (Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr.)
- Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani
For the Defendants (Mrs. Priya Sachdev Kapur & Ors.)
- Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar
Last Hearing Recap
At the previous hearing, the Delhi High Court witnessed sharp arguments questioning the authenticity of the Will relied upon by Sunjay Kapur’s third wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur, which purportedly bequeaths his entire personal estate to her.
Senior advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, appearing for Sunjay’s mother Rani Kapur, raised significant doubts about:
- the timeline in which Priya rapidly regained control of key Sona Group companies days after Sunjay’s death,
- the credibility of the two attesting witnesses,
- and the suspected concealment and movement of Sunjay’s assets, including why a man earning Rs 60 crore annually had bank balances of barely Rs 2 crore.
Gaggar argued that the “haste and preparedness” with which Priya convened an EGM within six days of Sunjay’s death, reinstated herself as MD of AIPL, and joined the Sona BLW board 11 days later, raised “serious corporate-governance concerns.”
He also alleged major omissions in asset disclosure, suggesting funds may have been moved out of India, and sought directions for Priya to furnish two years’ financial records of both herself and Sunjay, along with an interim order restoring the earlier status of assets.
The credibility of the Will witnesses was also questioned.
- Dinesh Agarwal, who allegedly emailed the Will to executor Shradha Suri, was said to have been hospitalised just days earlier and later claimed he was not the custodian of any estate documents.
- Nitin Sharma, the second witness, was appointed to the AIPL board soon after Sunjay’s death, which Gaggar suggested could indicate “incentivisation.”
Gaggar further argued that the exclusion of 80-year-old Rani Kapur from Sunjay’s Will—despite Sunjay’s father having left his entire estate to her—showed a stark departure from family practice and added to the suspicion of forgery.
The interim application before the Court was filed by Karisma Kapoor’s two children, who allege that Priya forged their father’s Will and is attempting to take full control of his assets.
Case Title:
Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors.,
CS(OS)-627/2025,
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
