Today, On 14th May, The Supreme Court refused to halt the board meeting of Raghuvanshi Investment Private Limited amid the Kapur family’s escalating trust dispute. It reminded them: “We all came with empty hands and we have to go with empty hands.”
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday refused to stays the scheduled board meeting of Raghuvanshi Investment Private Limited, which controls a major share of the disputed estate of Sunjay Kapur, amid the continuing conflict within his family involving his mother Rani Kapur and wife Priya Kapur over the family trust.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan also stated today that it would like to review the progress of the mediation currently underway in the dispute relating to Sunjay Kapur’s estate.
The Bench said,
“We have already requested the mediator to start with the mediation proceedings. For the present, we request the opponents not to do anything which may directly affect mediation. Time and again we have said it will be in the interest of all parties to put an end to this dispute else it will be a long drawn battle,”
However, the Court directed that during the meeting, no discussion shall take place on the agenda items concerning the appointment of two independent directors and the change of the signatory for the bank accounts.
The Court once again urged the family members to settle the dispute, noting Rani Kapur’s advancing age.
The court remarked,
“She is an 80 year old woman. We all came with empty hands and we have to go with empty hands. All we carry is our souls. There has to be a will to settle the matter. Don’t go before the mediator with a heavy heart just because court has pushed us. Each one of you try.”
The Court further remarked,
“We all came with empty hands and we have to go with empty hands. All we carry is our souls.”
Kapil Sibal added,
“That’s how it is… naked we come and naked we go.”
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared via video conference on behalf of Karishma Kapoor and her children.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented one of the respondents, while Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa, appearing for Rani Kapur, also addressed the Court.
Pahwa highlighted certain developments that he claimed occurred during the mediation process. The Court then questioned the urgency behind the renewed filings.
Justice Pardiwala observed that once the parties had agreed to mediation, they were expected to cooperate rather than repeatedly return to litigation.
The Court remarked,
“Why are you again here? If you are not interested in mediation, we will hear it,”
Pahwa submitted that notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to mediation, notice had been issued for a board meeting proposing the induction of two independent directors in a company in which Sona Comstar holds significant shares.
He argued that such actions could shift the control dynamics while a fragile dispute is ongoing.
The Court asked who was overseeing these developments, stressing the sensitivity of the corporate structure involved.
He further alleged that key shareholding arrangements had been modified within family trusts even before mediation commenced, which he said was aimed at diluting control.
Kapil Sibal, however, responded that the company has been functioning since 2014 and was acting in compliance with regulatory directions, including RBI requirements to appoint independent directors.
The Court indicated that mediation should proceed without steps that could tilt the balance in the dispute. It also stated that it would look into the matter with the RBI, but emphasized that mediation must continue for the time being.
Justice Pardiwala also noted that the dispute involved an 80-year-old family member and urged restraint and sensitivity from all parties.
Adding that the objective was to prevent a prolonged corporate conflict, the Court said,
“Once we referred it to mediation, we expect cooperation. Otherwise, we will decide it ourselves,”
The bench further cautioned that any interference during mediation would only complicate efforts toward a resolution, and directed the parties to refrain from pursuing contested agenda items related to control and financial authority until further review.
The matter has been scheduled to be taken up again after the court vacation on August 6, after the mediator reports on the progress of discussions between the parties. The Court appointed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud as the mediator to facilitate talks.
Earlier, it had proposed mediation, citing the advanced age of petitioner Rani Kapur, and expressed hope that the family dispute could be resolved amicably.
In her detailed SLP, the petitioner challenged three Delhi High Court orders dated 29.01.2026, 10.02.2026, and 23.03.2026 in C.S. (OS) No. 69 of 2026. She argued that the High Court merely issued notice and repeatedly deferred urgent pleas seeking protection of her assets.
The petitioner contended that, despite her status as an elderly widow, the High Court did not grant interim protection orders, leaving the estate vulnerable. She further alleged that these delays have allowed the opposing side to prejudice and dissipate the family assets.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by Rani Kapur, who says that after she suffered a stroke in 2017, her late son Sunjay Kapur and his wife Priya Kapur took advantage of her vulnerable health and misplaced trust.
She has alleged that her assets were shifted into the family trust without her informed approval and that she was made to sign various papers, including blank sheets, on the pretext of simplifying administrative tasks.
The conflict deepened following Sunjay Kapur’s death in June last year, with Rani Kapur accusing Priya Kapur of quickly moving to take control of key entities within the Sona Group.
She claims that most of the family wealth has been diverted to Priya Kapur and the children, leaving her with no share.
Related proceedings over control of the estate are already underway before the Delhi High Court.
Earlier, On April 30, the court granted an interim injunction sought by the two children of Bollywood actor Karisma Kapoor and barred their stepmother, Priya Sachdev Kapur, from creating third-party rights over the properties left behind by Sunjay Kapur.
Karisma Kapoor was previously married to Sunjay Kapur before his marriage to Priya Kapur.
Before the Supreme Court of India, Rani Kapur has asked for a status quo order preventing any transfer or alteration of trust assets.
During an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court encouraged the parties to consider mediation, noting that an extended inheritance dispute involving an 80-year-old litigant would ultimately benefit no one.
Case Title: Rani Kapur Vs Priya Kapur