Indus Valley Times

Plaintiffs partially concede key legal bar as Delhi High Court proceedings narrow to Indian assets; parties directed to file written submissions by December 22

By Staff Reporter

New Delhi, Dec. 11: The high-stakes legal battle over the personal estate of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur took a decisive turn in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, as a sharp jurisdictional objection raised by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal significantly narrowed the scope of the plaintiffs’ case. Representing Defendant No. 2, Master Azarias Kapur, Sibal argued that Indian courts cannot adjudicate disputes concerning foreign immovable property — a point the plaintiffs struggled to counter.

Sibal reminded the court that Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly bars Indian courts from passing orders, including injunctions or partition, regarding properties located outside India. Despite weeks of arguments centered on Kapur’s overseas assets, he noted, the plaintiffs had not addressed this fundamental legal limitation.

“You cannot seek injunctions or final relief over assets for which this Court has no jurisdiction,” Sibal submitted. “Partition of foreign property by metes and bounds is legally impossible and well-settled law.”

The plaintiffs — who had been seeking broad status quo orders covering both domestic and foreign assets — were confronted squarely with this jurisdictional roadblock, leading to a notable shift in their position.

 Plaintiffs Forced to Recast Case

In a moment that altered the courtroom’s mood, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for plaintiffs Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, acknowledged that he “partly agrees with what Mr. Sibal is saying.” He attempted to reframe the relief sought, not as one relating to foreign properties, but as an injunction restraining Defendant No. 1, Mrs. Priya Kapur, from “acting upon the Will” abroad.

This concession marked a clear retreat from the plaintiffs’ earlier arguments and signaled recognition of the legal impossibility of their original plea.

 Defence Pushes Back

Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan, appearing for Defendant No. 1, swiftly challenged the attempted reframing. She pointed out that the injunction petition currently on record makes no reference at all to the Will, rendering the plaintiffs’ revised position both procedurally untenable and legally inconsistent.

Trehan emphasized that the case must be governed strictly by the pleadings, evidence, and statutory constraints, not shifting narratives driven by tactical courtroom adjustments.

 Executor’s Counsel Counters Allegations

Adding further layers to the proceedings, Senior Advocate Anuradha Dutt, representing executor Ms. Shradha Suri, rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to question the executor’s credibility. Dutt said the executor had fulfilled all legal obligations, promptly obtained certified copies of the Will, and provided full transparency — including facilitating inspections for the plaintiffs.

She stressed that the executor’s role remains neutral and statutory, and that criticisms aimed at her conduct were unfounded and irrelevant to the injunction proceedings under Order 39.

 What Lies Ahead

The plaintiffs’ partial concession has reshaped the contours of the litigation. The dispute may now be limited to Indian-based personal assets of the late industrialist, substantially reducing the scope of the plaintiffs’ claims.

With arguments concluded, the Court has directed all parties to file their written submissions by December 22, after which the matter will be reserved for orders.

As the estate battle progresses, today’s developments mark one of the most consequential shifts yet — signalling that the plaintiffs’ case may now have to contract significantly within the jurisdiction allowed under Indian law.