Late industrialist Sunjay Kapur`s wife, Priya Kapur and their minor son on Tuesday contended before the Delhi High Court that it does not have jurisdiction to injunct them from dealing with foreign assets in the UK and the US. Priya Kapur`s counsel submitted that the issue of foreign assets is a matter of foreign jurisdiction and the high court cannot stop them from seeking title of Sunjay`s immovable properties abroad. Apart from this, Karisma Kapoor’s kids lawyer laid out evidence suggesting her 2023 removal from AIPL was neither routine nor consensual.
Priya Kapur on Sunjay Kapur’s foreign assets
Justice Jyoti Singh, who concluded hearing arguments on an interim injunction application filed by Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor`s children to restrain Priya Kapur from alienating them from Sunjay`s assets, asked the parties to file their written submissions in the matter. The court listed the case for further consideration on December 22.
The interim application was filed in a suit of Karisma Kapoor`s children, challenging their late father`s purported will of his assets, reportedly worth Rs 30,000 crore.
During the hearing, senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Priya`s minor son, argued that the mother (Priya) has no intention to sell the shares in Aureus Investments Pvt Ltd (AIPL), which were transferred to her after her husband`s death.
But as far as immovable assets in the US and the UK are concerned, the high court here has no jurisdiction to pass a status quo order regarding them, he submitted. He added that as per law, it can only be determined by the courts of jurisdiction in which the property is situated.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the actress` children, said if that was the case, the court could pass an order restraining Priya Kapur from “misusing the (alleged) forged will” to seek title of the properties located abroad.
About Priya’s removal from AIPL
Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, laid out evidence suggesting her 2023 removal from AIPL was neither routine nor consensual. Instead, it was presented as the result of a serious marital breakdown followed by a rapid and opportunistic reoccupation of power after Sunjay Kapur’s death.
If Priya’s 2023 exit was orderly, Jethmalani argued why did her return to AIPL occur immediately only after Sunjay Kapur’s demise? The answer, according to the plaintiffs, lies in the sequence of post-death appointments. On 13 June, just a day after Sunjay Kapur passed away, Priya was appointed a director of AIPL. By 20 June, she had reinstated herself as Managing Director.
Jethmalani characterised this as a calculated consolidation of power, enabled by the sudden vacuum created by Sunjay’s death and accompanied by the production of a Will that is now heavily contested. “She was not in control when Sunjay was alive,” he said. “She sought control only after his passing.”
Sunjay Kapur passed away on June 12 after collapsing during a polo match in England. He reportedly suffered a sudden cardiac arrest.