The Supreme Court on Thursday restrained a major company linked to an inheritance dispute within the family of late businessman Sanjay Kapoor from going ahead with the appointment of independent directors, even as it made a fresh appeal to the warring factions to settle the bitter row amicably through mediation.
Justices JP Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Rani Kapoor, the late businessman’s 80-year-old mother, must have been “shaken” by the ongoing dispute, and urged all parties to “handle it with care”, while warning that the litigation could otherwise become a “protracted battle”.
“We’ve been saying over and over that ‘compromise’. There’s this 80-year-old woman. Sometime you have to compromise sometime. What has there to gain? We all come empty-handed and we will go empty-handed. We only carry our souls in the end. Approach the mediator not with a heavy heart. There has to be a will to settle the matter…try,” the judge commented.
The observations came as the court was hearing an interim application filed by Rani Kapoor accusing her daughter-in-law Priya Kapoor and others of attempting to “forcibly seize” the disputed property despite the matter having already been referred for mediation before former Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.
Read also:The SC’s mediation offer faces a hurdle after Rani Kapoor filed a petition against Priya
The application objected to a proposed board meeting on May 18 of Raghuvanshi Investment Private Limited (RIPL), a company linked to the family holdings, where appointment of independent directors and changes in the two authorized banking positions were proposed.
Initially, the Commission expressed its dissatisfaction with the new escalation despite its previous efforts to facilitate mediation. “Why are you here again? We told you if you are not interested in mediation, we will not move forward in this direction. We will listen to this case and decide it.”
Senior advocate Naveen Pahwa, appearing for Rani Kapoor, stated that the proposed appointments were aimed at wresting control from her client, adding that RIPL holds significant shares in the parent company. He urged the court not to “complicate the matter further” during the mediation proceedings.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RIPL, defended the proposed board resolutions and stated that the company, being a non-banking financial company, was acting in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) directions issued after the inspection conducted in February. “RIPL is an investment company. It is a manager and no one changes that,” Sibal said.
When Sibal stressed that compliance with laws and investments required going ahead with decisions, the bench replied: “It doesn’t matter… wait two months and then we will take the call.”
The court also noted that even the obligations relating to the RBI could await the outcome of the mediation.
The judges repeatedly stressed that neither party should take steps that would exacerbate tensions during mediation. “Once we asked the party not to do anything that would anger the other party…” the bench noted.
He added: “No one controls anything at the present time. The parties are in front of the mediators and they leave the mediators to explore all possibilities.”
In its order, the court recorded Rani Kapoor’s concerns that the board meeting and the proposed appointments could aggravate the dispute and undermine the mediation process.
“We do not propose to say anything further at this time. We have already asked the informed mediator to begin mediation. At this time, we ask the parties not to do anything that would directly impact the mediation proceedings,” the order said.
The bench also recorded that the agenda items objected to by Rani Kapoor will not be taken up in the May 18 meeting for the time being. “We believe at this time that the agenda items objected to will not be taken up at the May 18 meeting,” the order read.
The court also made it clear that the RBI and other statutory authorities will not insist on immediate compliance during this period. “In the meantime, the RBI’s directions and statutory compliance shall not be compromised by the RBI or any other statutory authority,” the bench directed.
During the hearing, the court asked the family members to reconsider the long-standing lawsuit.
“There is an 80-year-old woman who is already shaken by all this. She should be guided by many people. With this state of mind, handle it carefully. We have asked you to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Otherwise, it will be a long-term fight,” the bench noted.
The court also interacted briefly with senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for actor Karisma Kapoor’s children from her previous marriage to Sanjay Kapoor.
When informed that they were currently “monitoring the proceedings”, the judge said: “We have also asked him to try mediation. He claims the will is forged but it may be too late even if he succeeds in proving it at some point in the future.”
Jethmalani responded that his clients are also willing to engage with the mediator if necessary.
The proceedings arose out of a petition filed by Rani Kapoor seeking protection of family properties and restraint against alleged interference in trusts and corporate entities associated with Sona Group following the death of Sanjay Kapoor, former Chairman of Sona Comstar.
Sanjay Kapoor died of cardiac arrest while playing polo in London on 12 June 2025, after which the dispute escalated into competing claims over the family trusts, shareholding structures and control of several companies associated with the business empire.
At the conclusion of the hearing on Thursday, the court said it would consider the matter again after receiving a report from the mediator. The court commented before concluding its ruling, saying: “All the best to all parties.”
