In a complex legal battle involving one of India’s high-profile industrial families, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard arguments over whether it can pass injunctions preventing Priya Kapur, widow of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, and her minor son from dealing with assets located abroad. The case, which involves a purported will and assets reportedly worth around ₹30,000 crore, underscores the intricate intersection of Indian law, foreign property rights, and family inheritance disputes.

Background of the Dispute

Sunjay Kapur, a prominent industrialist and former director of several business ventures, passed away on June 12 after collapsing during a polo match in England due to a sudden cardiac arrest. His death triggered a legal contest over his estate, particularly between his widow Priya Kapur and their minor son on one side, and his children from an earlier relationship with Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor on the other.

Karisma Kapoor’s children have challenged the authenticity of a purported will, arguing that it unfairly allocates Sunjay Kapur’s assets and may have been forged. The will has reportedly left large sections of the estate to Priya Kapur and her son, while excluding Sunjay’s mother, Rani Kapur, and raising questions about the treatment of other family members. Rani Kapur has previously told the High Court that instead of mourning her son’s sudden death, Priya Kapur moved quickly to assert control over the family assets. She claimed she was unaware of the existence of the will and noted that the document does not recognize her rights, despite Sunjay’s earlier statements that he had received much from his mother.

Arguments Before the Delhi High Court

The central issue addressed in Tuesday’s hearing was whether the Delhi High Court could intervene in matters concerning assets located outside India, specifically in the United Kingdom and the United States. Priya Kapur’s counsel argued that foreign immovable properties fall under the jurisdiction of courts in the country where they are located. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Priya Kapur’s minor son, stated that the mother and son had no intention of selling the shares in Aureus Investments Pvt Ltd, which had been transferred to the son following Sunjay Kapur’s death.

However, Sibal emphasized that when it comes to immovable properties in the UK and the US, the Delhi High Court lacks the authority to pass status quo orders or injunctions affecting those assets. He contended that only the courts in the jurisdiction where the property exists can determine rightful ownership or prevent any alienation of such properties. The argument highlights a well-established principle in private international law: courts generally do not exercise jurisdiction over immovable assets located outside their territorial limits.

On the other side, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Karisma Kapoor’s children, countered that while foreign courts may have primary jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court could still intervene to prevent Priya Kapur from “misusing” the purported will to stake claims over foreign properties. Jethmalani suggested that without such an interim measure, there is a risk that Priya Kapur could take steps to secure title abroad, potentially complicating the rights of other heirs and making enforcement of future Indian court orders more difficult.

Court Proceedings and Directions

Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the matter, concluded arguments on the interim injunction application filed by Karisma Kapoor’s children. The application sought to restrain Priya Kapur and her minor son from alienating or otherwise dealing with Sunjay Kapur’s assets abroad. During the hearing, the judge directed both parties to submit their written arguments on the scope of the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction concerning foreign properties. The court has listed the case for further consideration on December 22, providing both sides an opportunity to elaborate on the legal and procedural nuances involved.

The hearing reflected the challenges courts face when domestic inheritance disputes intersect with foreign jurisdictions. While Indian courts can pass orders affecting assets within the country, their authority is limited when it comes to properties situated overseas. Enforcement of Indian court orders abroad often requires recognition and cooperation of foreign courts, which can be a complex and time-consuming process.

The Alleged Will and Family Tensions

At the heart of the dispute is the purported will of Sunjay Kapur, which reportedly favors Priya Kapur and her son. Karisma Kapoor’s children have raised questions regarding its authenticity, claiming the will may have been altered or forged. The challenge underscores long-standing tensions within the Kapur family, which have been compounded by the sudden and unexpected nature of Sunjay Kapur’s death.

Sunjay’s mother, Rani Kapur, has been particularly vocal about her concerns. She told the court that Priya Kapur appeared to act swiftly to assert control over Sunjay’s estate, leaving little opportunity for other family members to verify or contest claims before actions were taken. This has added another layer of complexity to the ongoing litigation, especially given that some assets are located in foreign jurisdictions with separate legal frameworks.

Legal Principles and Challenges

The case raises important questions about the intersection of domestic succession law and international property rights. Indian law, under the Indian Succession Act and related statutes, governs the distribution of property situated within India. However, immovable property located abroad is generally subject to the laws of the country in which it is situated.

This distinction means that while Indian courts can adjudicate on movable assets, bank accounts, shares of Indian companies, and other domestic interests, they have limited power to affect real estate and other immovable properties overseas. Any order issued by an Indian court attempting to restrict transactions involving foreign property would need to be recognized by the foreign court to have effect. This principle was central to Priya Kapur’s counsel’s arguments.

Implications for Estate Disputes

The Kapur family dispute highlights broader issues in cross-border inheritance cases. Families with assets spread across multiple jurisdictions often face prolonged litigation, particularly when there are questions about the validity of wills and competing claims by multiple heirs. Coordination between Indian courts and foreign courts, adherence to private international law, and procedural complexities in foreign jurisdictions can extend disputes for years, making resolution challenging.

Legal experts observing the case note that interim relief, such as injunctions or status quo orders, can provide temporary protection but may not resolve substantive disputes over ownership or inheritance. The Delhi High Court’s deliberations on whether it can pass any effective order regarding Sunjay Kapur’s foreign properties will set an important precedent for similar high-value, cross-border inheritance cases.

Next Steps

Both parties have been asked to file detailed written submissions by the next hearing on December 22. The court will likely consider the scope of its jurisdiction, the enforceability of Indian court orders abroad, and the potential for interim measures to prevent alleged misuse of the will while awaiting full adjudication.

Until then, the assets in the UK and the US remain beyond the immediate reach of the Delhi High Court, leaving Priya Kapur and her minor son free to manage or pursue claims over those properties subject to the legal frameworks of the respective countries.

As this high-profile legal battle unfolds, it underscores the complexity of modern estate disputes involving cross-border assets and the need for careful navigation of both domestic and international legal systems. With stakes reportedly exceeding ₹30,000 crore, the Kapur family dispute is poised to remain under close public and media scrutiny in the coming weeks.