The Supreme Court extended the mediation in the Sunjay Kapur family estate dispute to November 2, with ex-CJI Chandrachud mediating and the RK Family Trust directed to pay his fee.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday recorded that the mediation in the dispute within the family of the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur over the RK Family Trust and his estate, which controls the auto-components major Sona Comstar is progressing satisfactorily, and extended the process until November 2, 2026, while directing that the mediator’s fees be met from the RK Family Trust [Rani Kapur v. Priya Kapur and Others].
The mediation is being conducted by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, whom the Court had appointed on May 7 to facilitate a resolution of the disputes among the family members. The Bench was informed that the proceedings had by now run over six sessions, with the mediator having interacted with all members of the family.
A ‘positive’ report
Taking up the matter, the Court indicated that the preliminary report before it reflected progress. When Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for Rani Kapur, submitted that “the mediation is continuing” but that the family was “facing one difficulty,” and Senior Advocate Sheryl Trehan, for Priya Kapur, confirmed that a session had been held two days earlier, the Bench observed:
“The report appears to be positive.”
The dispute over the mediator’s fee
The difficulty concerned who should bear the mediator’s fee. Dave submitted that his client, aged 80, was not placed to meet it:
“There is a dispute regarding the mediator’s fee. She is 80 years old and does not have the financial means to bear it.”
When Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari offered that “we can sort this issue out among ourselves,” Dave pressed that the other side was better placed — “they have deep pockets, so they can continue bearing the expenses” — and urged an earlier date given his client’s age and health:
“She is concerned because she is not in the best of health. May the matter be taken up earlier than November.”
The Court settled the question by directing that the fee come from the trust rather than any individual party, addressing the senior counsel directly:
“Who will pay the mediator? I am not referring to your clients. I am asking the learned senior advocates appearing before us. For the time being, let the trust bear the mediator’s fee. Having gone through the mediation report, we are quite confident that all of you are close to arriving at a happy resolution.”
The order
Recording the state of the mediation, the Court ordered:
“The learned Mediator has forwarded a preliminary mediation report. We note that the mediation proceedings have, thus far, been conducted over six sessions. The learned Mediator has interacted with all members of the family. We are pleased to note that the mediation is progressing satisfactorily and that the parties are cooperating. The parties have engaged in detailed discussions. The learned Mediator has informed the Court that the parties have agreed to continue with further mediation with a view to arriving at a holistic settlement of all claims. We also note that, during the mediation sessions held so far, the learned Mediator has availed the assistance of a senior Chartered Accountant.”
Noting the personal participation of one of the family members and fixing a timeline, the Court continued:
“We appreciate that the client represented by Mr. Jethmalani has also attended the mediation proceedings in person. The learned Mediator has earnestly requested that time be granted until November 2, 2026 to continue the mediation process. We are hopeful, in light of the manner in which the parties have cooperated thus far, that all disputes may be resolved amicably. We would once again remind the parties that they should approach the mediation with an open mind and an open heart, and make every effort to avoid being drawn into prolonged litigation. The mediation shall continue, and we shall await a further report from the learned Mediator. The fees of the learned Mediator shall be paid from the RK Family Trust. There shall be no further debate on this issue. The mediation report is taken on record.”
Background
Sunjay Kapur, the chairman of Sona BLW Precision Forgings (Sona Comstar), died on June 12, 2025, while playing polo in the United Kingdom; a coroner’s report, released by his wife’s office, attributed his death to cardiac causes. He was 53. His death opened a dispute within the family over the control of the group and the distribution of an estate estimated in reporting to run into several thousand crore rupees, with the RK Family Trust holding the promoter stake in Sona Comstar through the group’s investment vehicles.
The litigation before the Supreme Court is principally between Rani Kapur, his mother and the former chairperson of the Sona group, and Priya Sachdev Kapur, his wife, who was appointed a non-executive director of Sona Comstar shortly after his death and who manages the trust’s interests on behalf of the couple’s minor son. Rani Kapur has, in her filings and public statements, contested the manner in which the succession and the affairs of the trust were handled following her son’s death.
The dispute is not confined to the two women. Sunjay Kapur’s two elder children from his earlier marriage to actor Karisma Kapoor have separately moved a court, through their mother as guardian, seeking partition of the estate and challenging a document dated March 21, 2025 that has been put forward as their father’s will — the “client represented by Mr. Jethmalani” whose personal attendance the Court noted in its order. Rather than allow the contest to fragment into parallel adversarial proceedings, the Supreme Court referred the parties to mediation before former Chief Justice Chandrachud, with a view to a comprehensive settlement of all claims, and had earlier directed the parties not to comment on the matter in the media or on social media.
With the mediator now reporting progress over six sessions, and a senior chartered accountant enlisted to work through the financial dimensions of the estate, the Court has kept the matter out of contested hearings for the present, extending the process to November 2, 2026 in the hope of an amicable resolution.
For Rani Kapur: Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
For Priya Kapur: Sheryl Trehan, Sr. Adv.
Also appearing: Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv.; Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. (for a family member)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE