Delhi High Court flags major gaps in Sunjay Kapur will case after Priya Sachdev’s defence struggles to explain errors and contradictions in the document. On November 21, the dispute over the alleged will of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur intensified in the Delhi High Court. The court has raised several concerns regarding the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the document, which is being contested by Priya Sachdev, the daughter-in-law of the late industrialist. The court has been scrutinizing the document for the second consecutive day, highlighting the inconsistencies and errors in the will. Priya Sachdev’s defence team has failed to provide satisfactory answers to the court’s queries, leaving the judges with more questions than answers. The court has expressed its dissatisfaction with the defence team’s inability to explain the factual mistakes and contradictions in the document. The case has been ongoing for some time, with the court revisiting the same issues and concerns. The judges have been pressing the defence team to provide clear and convincing answers, but their efforts have been met with resistance and confusion.
The case senior advocate Rajiv Nayar attempted to defend the inaccuracies in the document by suggesting that it was based on a template from Sunjay Kapur’s mother, Rani Kapur’s will. However, the court questioned the defence team’s claim, pointing out that a billionaire like Sunjay Kapur would not depend on his mother’s will as a template, especially when it came to his own children, assets, and gender. The court also pointed out that Rani Kapur’s will was notarized and procedurally sound, while Sunjay Kapur’s will was not notarized and registered. The defence team’s inability to explain these discrepancies has raised several red flags, and the court has been left with more questions than answers. The court has also revisited the issue of delayed disclosure of the will, attempts to secure signatures before sharing it, and the persistence of factual discrepancies. Priya Sachdev’s defence team has been unable to provide satisfactory answers on any of these points, leaving the court to wonder if the document is genuine or fabricated. The court has been patient and has given the defence team ample opportunity to clarify the discrepancies and errors in the document, but their efforts have been met with resistance and confusion.
Across two days of hearings, the pattern highlighted by the bench has remained consistent: the defence has not clarified the document’s errors, cannot establish Sunjay Kapur’s involvement, and continues to conflate routine payments with trust assets. The court has been critical of the defence team’s handling of the case, pointing out their inability to provide clear and convincing answers to the court’s queries. The court has also expressed its dissatisfaction with the defence team’s attempts to downplay the discrepancies and errors in the document. The court has been patient and has given the defence team ample opportunity to clarify the discrepancies and errors in the document, but their efforts have been met with resistance and confusion. The court has also revisited the issue of the delayed disclosure of the will, attempts to secure signatures before sharing it, and the persistence of factual discrepancies. The defence team’s inability to explain these discrepancies has raised several red flags, and the court has been left with more questions than answers. The court has also pointed out that not a single rupee has reportedly been transferred to the children under the consent terms, which is a mandatory obligation of the Estate. This has further raised questions about the legitimacy of the will and the intentions of Priya Sachdev and her defence team.
The case is ongoing, and the court has reserved its judgment. The outcome of the case will have far-reaching implications for Priya Sachdev and her children, as well as the Kapur family and their business interests. The court has been critical of the defence team’s handling of the case, pointing out their inability to provide clear and convincing answers to the court’s queries. The defence team has been unable to explain the discrepancies and errors in the document, and the court has been left with more questions than answers. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that wills are genuine and accurately reflect the wishes of the deceased. The court has been patient and has given the defence team ample opportunity to clarify the discrepancies and errors in the document, but their efforts have been met with resistance and confusion. The case is a reminder that the law is there to protect the rights of all parties involved, and the court will not hesitate to take action if it finds that the will is not genuine or has been tampered with.
