Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
During the last hearing, the lawyer representing Kapoor’s daughter had claimed that two months of university fees had not been paid. The allegation led to a heated argument, but Priya’s lawyer Shail Trehan produced receipts in the court – including payments of ₹95 lakh per semester – to show that the fees had already been paid. He told the court that the next installment of the second semester is due in December only.
Once the issue of fees was settled, the court turned to the main point of dispute: the authenticity of Sanjay Kapoor’s will. Kapoor and his children have alleged forgery. The defense told the court how the will was created, from its first draft to the final version.
According to the defense, the draft was prepared on the laptop of lawyer Nitin Sharma and he also prepared the final document. Sharma submitted an affidavit supported by screenshots, file history and metadata, and brought his laptop to the court, inviting the bench to verify the information. The defense said this timeline matches the plaintiffs’ own statements about Kapoor’s arrival in Delhi, and the travel records align with the metadata.
The court was then told about the movement of the document – from its creation as a Word file, to its conversion into a signed PDF, to the email exchange between Sharma and accountant Dinesh Aggarwal, and finally to Kapoor viewing it on the family office WhatsApp group at 5:01 pm. The defense said each step was supported by logs, sworn statements and screenshots.
The plaintiff also questioned the authenticity of Sanjay’s signature on the will. The defense responded that the same signature was used by Karishma and her children to claim benefits of ₹2,000 crore from the RK Family Trust, and its authenticity had never been disputed before. Both the witnesses—Sharma and Aggarwal—said that the signatures were genuine and were properly witnessed. The emails revealed that Aggarwal contacted the executor immediately after Kapoor’s death and that the executor received the original document on June 24, 2025, which the plaintiff acknowledged in writing.
Another argument raised was that the will was doubtful because it was not registered. The defense said registration is not mandatory under Indian law, and probate is not required in Delhi. He said most of Kapoor’s real estate assets were abroad, where probate would not be required.
Before the end of the hearing, senior lawyer Rajeev Nair, appearing for Priya Kapoor, said, “There is nothing suspicious that a husband gives everything from his property to his wife. As in my father-in-law’s will, where everything was given to his wife. This is a healthy tradition which perhaps has been maintained.”
The debate will continue on 21st November also.
Also read: Supreme Court notice to Centre, BCI on petition related to POSH complaints of women lawyers
(edited by : Ajay Vaishnav,