The Delhi High Court has expressed concerns regarding a plea by Priya Kapur, widow of the late Sunjay Kapur, seeking permission to file her husband’s asset and liability details in a sealed cover. Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the matter, indicated that granting such a request could pose complications, particularly concerning the rights of Sunjay Kapur’s children, who are parties to the ongoing partition suit. The court highlighted that these parties have a legitimate interest in scrutinizing the disclosed assets and questioned how they could effectively challenge the information if bound by confidentiality restrictions.
Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan, representing Priya Kapur, argued that the sensitive nature of the asset details—such as bank account information—necessitated protection from potential media exposure. Trehan emphasized concerns over cybersecurity and alleged leaks of court documents to the press, asserting that filing the information in a sealed cover was a precautionary measure to safeguard privacy. She also noted that some legal representatives involved in the case had been publicizing details to the media.
The court questioned whether any legal precedent supported the request to file such sensitive information under seal and directed Trehan to present relevant suggestions by the next hearing scheduled for September 26.
This application arises from a pending partition suit filed by the children of Karisma Kapoor and Sunjay Kapur, who allege that Priya Kapur forged a will to exclude them from their father’s estate. The will in question, dated March 21, 2025, purportedly bequeaths Sunjay Kapur’s entire personal estate to Priya Kapur. Priya Kapur has denied these allegations, asserting that the will was executed well before Sunjay Kapur’s death in June 2025.
The court had previously directed Priya Kapur to submit a comprehensive list of all movable and immovable assets of Sunjay Kapur. At the latest hearing, the application from Rani Kapur, Sunjay’s mother, seeking a copy of the will, was also considered, with the court indicating it would address this matter in the upcoming session.