https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Priya-Kapurs-‘position-swap-defence-faces-major-setback-in-Sunjay-Kapur-620.jpeg
The battle over the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s Will, has already become one of the most closely watched legal disputes considering its connection to Sunjay’s children with actress Karisma Kapoor, Samaira and Kiaan. It has further intensified in the Delhi High Court as new arguments cast doubt on the credibility of Priya Kapur’s defence.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Samaira and Kiaan, dismantled Priya Kapur’s long-standing claim that her 2023 exit from Automotive India Pvt Ltd (AIPL) was a consensual “position swap” with Sunjay. Instead, he described her removal on 31 May 2023 as a direct fallout of marital discord—arguing that corporate filings reveal she neither became Managing Director of Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd (RIPL) nor held any role in the company.
According to Jethmalani, “Priya was never made the MD of RIPL… She was removed from AIPL,” countering her assertions of a smooth corporate restructuring. The absence of any parallel appointment, he said, undermines her narrative of a stable blended family and seamless transition—an especially relevant point given her repeated references to cordial ties with Karisma Kapoor’s children.
What followed Sunjay’s death in June 2023 is now under even sharper scrutiny. Records presented in court show Priya Kapur was appointed as a director of AIPL a day after his passing, and reinstated herself as Managing Director within a week. Jethmalani argued this reflected not continuity, but opportunism: “She was not in control when Sunjay was alive. She sought control only after his passing.”
The corporate timeline, the plaintiffs argue, aligns too conveniently with the sudden appearance of a contested Will—a document central to determining the legal rights of Sunjay’s heirs, including Karisma’s children.
Complicating matters further is the conduct of the named executor Shradha Suri Marwah, who, according to submissions, neither pursued probate nor took charge of Sunjay’s assets as required. Jethmalani contended that an executor cannot selectively enforce parts of a Will. The court was also told that Shradha claimed to have “deleted” a crucial email attachment containing the alleged Will—despite the email itself being produced in court.
“You cannot delete the attachment without deleting the email,” Jethmalani argued, highlighting what he described as an “impossible explanation” and pointing to the suspicious disappearance of a supporting document that appeared in an earlier email but not in the final version.
With the matter listed again for December 22, the court will continue to examine inconsistencies around Priya’s corporate role, post-death actions, and the missing attachment—issues that now lie at the heart of a dispute carrying significant implications for Sunjay Kapur’s children, his legacy, and the businesses he once helmed.
Also Read: Karisma Kapoor renews Rs 66 lakhs Bandra apartment lease amid battle over Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 30,000-crores estate: Report
