The long-running tension surrounding the family of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur has now reached a new and dramatic chapter inside a Delhi courtroom.
What started as public remarks, media conversations, and social media chatter has turned into a full-fledged legal fight between two prominent women connected to the Kapur family: Mandhira Kapur Smith, Sunjay Kapur’s sister, and Priya Sachdev Kapur, his widow.
This week, the Patiala House Court in Delhi became the stage for the latest development in the unfolding dispute. The court issued notice on an application filed by Mandhira Kapur Smith seeking the production of certain documents from Priya Sachdev Kapur.
Also Read: Sunjay Kapur estate row: Mother Rani Kapur approaches Delhi HC, accuses Priya of fraud in Sona Group assets
The case is tied to an ongoing criminal defamation complaint filed by Priya Kapur, who claims that several statements made publicly about her were damaging to her reputation.
Mandhira Kapur appears in court
Mandhira Kapur Smith personally appeared before the Patiala House Court after receiving a notice earlier in the proceedings.
During the hearing, she submitted her official reply to the defamation complaint filed by Priya Sachdev Kapur. Along with that response, Mandhira also filed separate application requesting court to direct Priya Kapur to produce certain documents that she believes are relevant to dispute.
The application quickly became the focal point of the hearing.
The matter was heard by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Siddhant Sihag, who listened to the initial arguments presented by both sides.
After the preliminary discussion, the court scheduled the next round of hearings and arguments for March 30.
Another name in the case
The legal battle does not involve only Mandhira Kapur Smith.
Another individual Pooja Chaudhary has also been named as proposed accused in defamation complaint filed by Priya Sachdev Kapur.
During the hearing, court granted additional time to Pooja Chaudhary’s lawyer to file reply to the complaint.
This means the case is still at relatively early stage with procedural steps continuing before the court decides how the matter should move forward.
Lawyers clash over document request
One of the most heated parts of the hearing revolved around Mandhira Kapur’s request for documents.
Mandhira’s legal team argued that certain materials in Priya Kapur’s possession are necessary to properly understand the context of the alleged defamatory statements.
Advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for Mandhira Kapur Smith, submitted the reply to the complaint along with the application seeking these documents.
According to him, the statements that Priya Kapur considers defamatory should not be viewed separately or in isolation. Instead, he argued that they must be understood within the broader context of ongoing family and legal matters.
To support the application, Mandhira’s legal team also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, suggesting that courts can order the production of relevant documents under certain circumstances.
But Priya Kapur’s legal team strongly disagreed.
Priya Kapur’s legal team pushes back
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Priya Sachdev Kapur, opposed the request for documents.
He argued that the application filed by Mandhira Kapur Smith was not maintainable at the current stage of the proceedings.
According to him, the case is still at the notice stage, which means the court has not yet reached the stage of framing charges.
In criminal cases, Singh explained, requests for the production of documents usually become relevant only after the court takes cognisance of the case and the proceedings move further.
Because of this, he argued that Mandhira’s application is premature.
Interestingly, Singh also told the court that he does not intend to file a formal written reply to the application. Instead, he said he reserves the right to present arguments based on legal points during the hearing.
Debate over the nature of the case
Another key point of disagreement between the two sides was about the nature of the case itself.
Mandhira Kapur’s lawyer argued that the judgment cited by Priya Kapur’s side was not applicable here.
According to Advocate Amit Prasad, the ruling relied upon by the complainant relates to criminal proceedings initiated by the State, whereas the present matter is a complaint case filed by a private individual.
Because of that distinction, he argued that the legal principles cited by Priya Kapur’s counsel should not apply in the same way.
However, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh disagreed with this interpretation.
He told the court that applications for the production of documents are typically considered only at an appropriate stage in the proceedings. Since the case has not yet reached that stage, he maintained that the request should not be entertained right now.
“No denial” of statements
During his arguments, Maninder Singh also made another significant point.
He told the court that Mandhira Kapur Smith has not denied making the statements that are being questioned in the defamation complaint.
According to him, there has been no claim from Mandhira that the content circulating online was morphed, altered, or manipulated.
Because the statements themselves are not being disputed, Singh argued that seeking additional documents at this stage does not make sense.
If Mandhira wishes to request documents, he suggested, she could do so later when the case reaches the stage of framing charges.
Dispute over the relevance of documents
Priya Kapur’s legal team also questioned whether the documents sought by Mandhira are even relevant to the case.
According to Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, the materials requested by Mandhira Kapur Smith relate to property issues, trusts, and other matters that have no direct connection with the defamation complaint.
He further told the court that many of these documents are already in the public domain, suggesting that Mandhira is already aware of the information she is seeking.
Because of this, Singh argued that the application should not be entertained.
Background: How the defamation case began
The legal dispute traces back to statements that Priya Sachdev Kapur claims were made about her in various public spaces.
In her complaint, Priya Kapur alleged that Mandhira Kapur Smith and another individual engaged in a sustained campaign to damage her reputation.
According to the complaint, remarks made in podcasts, social media posts, media interviews, and online content that was later republished contained serious allegations and insinuations against her.
Priya Kapur’s legal filing claims that these statements included false assertions and personal attacks, presented as if they were established facts.
The complaint further states that these comments were made even though certain issues related to the family were already sub judice, meaning they were under consideration by courts.
As a result, Priya Kapur argues that the remarks caused significant harm to her public image.