Karisma Kapoor’s Legal Team Hits Back at Priya Kapur in EXPLOSIVE Company Battle

The dispute within the Kapur family companies reached a tense point in court after Karisma Kapoor’s legal representatives challenged the story presented by Priya Kapur regarding movements within their business entities. What unfolded in the courtroom was a pointed attempt to reconstruct the timeline and intention behind key appointments and removals.

The opposing versions painted entirely different pictures about why Priya’s role changed and what happened in the days immediately after Sunjay Kapur’s passing.

Courtroom Pushback

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani took the lead in questioning the story put forward by Priya about an internal shuffle between her and Sunjay. He argued that the idea of a planned exchange of roles had no support in official corporate records. According to him, the timeline itself revealed a separate story that suggested conflict rather than coordination. He said the removal from the primary holding company did not arise from business strategy but from a breakdown in the marriage that preceded Sunjay’s death.

He read out his statement in open court, saying, “It’s factually incorrect. Priya was never made the MD of RIPL. There was no swap, she was not even the director of the company. She was removed from AIPL on 31st of May 2023, but sought to acquire the position a day after Sunjay’s demise… Priya’s claim about maintaining a blended family and Karisma joining her for vacations and family dinners was all a public façade.”

The Timing Becomes Central

A major part of the argument relied on a step by step reconstruction of what happened in June 2023. Jethmalani focused on the fact that Priya’s removal from the holding company happened well before Sunjay’s death. What followed immediately after his passing became a central point of contention. He said her appointments and reinstatements in the days that followed raised concerns for the family and created a picture that went against her claim of a previously agreed internal plan.

These dates were presented as key markers to challenge the notion that she shifted to another company as part of a consensual exchange. The legal team emphasised that public filings showed no earlier presence of Priya in the entity she claims she moved to, which weakened her case even further.

It’s factually incorrect. Priya was never made the MD of RIPL.

- Senior advocate, Mahesh Jethmalani

Questions Around the Will

Another focus area was the Will submitted by Priya. Jethmalani argued that its execution raised several inconsistencies. According to him, the named executor did not begin the work expected of her and did not secure the assets or seek probate. He said this failure created avoidable confusion within the family and left important instructions unfulfilled.

The court was told that instead of acting upon the Will, the executor wrote to Priya asking her to begin probate proceedings long after Sunjay’s passing. Jethmalani argued that such a step only deepened doubts about the authenticity of the process. He urged the bench to take note of this pattern and treat it as a significant lapse that could not be brushed aside.

Call for Removal of the Executor

The legal team also raised a broader point about the obligation of an executor once appointed. According to him, someone given that responsibility must formally accept the role and begin work without delay. In this case, he argued that the executor neither assumed control nor followed the instructions embedded in the Will. This formed the basis of his request for the court to replace her.

The plea was presented as necessary to protect the interests of the heirs and to ensure transparency during a difficult transition period. The family’s side maintained that the situation required firm intervention to restore order to the business structure and personal estate.

The hearing brought several unresolved tensions to the surface and placed the corporate history of the Kapur family under careful scrutiny. With both sides preparing for a prolonged legal contest, the court signals suggest that each aspect of the sequence will now be examined in detail. What emerges from this inquiry could shape the future of the companies and the family members tied to them.