Priya with late Sunjay Kapur.
Credit: Instagram@priyasunjaykapur
Billionaire businessman Sunjay Kapur's net worth and his property are making the headlines since his death on June 12, 2025. The late chairman of auto parts manufacturer Sona Comstar had an estimated net worth of $1.2 billion (Rs 10,300 crore), as per a report by Forbes.
Following the surfacing of his alleged will, a property dispute arose within the Kapur family with his widow Priya Sachdeva, mother Riya Kapur and children with ex-with Karisma Kapoor being the main parties involved.
Sunjay Kapur passed away after suffering a heart attack while he was in the middle of a polo match. He was 53.
Sunjay had accidently swallowed a bee during the match which led to the heart attack.
Six weeks after the demise of industrialist Sunjay Kapur, his mother, Rani Kapur, has raised concerns over the “suspicious circumstances” surrounding his death in a letter addressed to the family-owned Sona Comstar and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
In the letter, she said that there is “more than what meets the eye”. Even hours before Sona Comstar AGM, Rani Kapur made shocking claims, alleging that she was "forced to sign documents behind locked doors" and "left at the mercy of a select few for survival."
Following the sudden passing of Sunjay Kapur, Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd (Sona Comstar) appointed Jeffrey Mark Overly as the new chairman of the board. Priya Sachdev Kapur was also added to the board as a non-executive director.
Priya Sachdeva at a July 30 family meeting presented a will allegedly executed on March 21.
This led to a suit being filed seeking an injunction on the transfer or disposal of the property.
The two children of Bollywood actor Karisma Kapoor on Tuesday moved the Delhi High Court seeking share in their late father Sunjay Kapur's assets reportedly worth Rs 30,000 crore.
The plaint, which is likely to come up on September 10, challenges Sunjay's March 21 will, which purportedly leaves his entire personal estate to their step-mother, Priya Kapur.
The plaint claims neither Sunjay mentioned about the will, nor Priya, or any other person, ever spoke of its existence.
While the daughter, Samaira Kapur, has filed the plaint through her mother, Karisma, authorising her as her general power of attorney, the son, a minor, is also represented by the mother as the legal guardian.
Karisma and Sunjay married in 2003 but divorced in 2016.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Priya Kapur, wife of late businessman Sunjay Kapur, to disclose all movable and immovable assets belonging to him as of June 12, the day of his death.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the direction while hearing a plaint filed by Sunjay's two children with former wife and actor Karisma Kapoor, challenging his purported will and seeking shares in the assets reportedly worth Rs 30,000 crore.
Priya, meanwhile, informed Justice Jyoti Singh that the two children, Samaira Kapur (20), and Kiaan Raj Kapur (15, had already received Rs 1,900 crore from the family trust and asked "what more do they want"?
Priya's counsel, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, submitted though the will was not registered, it wasn't "invalid" and added, "Not as if people are left on streets."
The submissions were made in response to the judge's query whether the will was registered.
The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed an application filed by Priya Kapur seeking removal of late husband Sunjay Kapur’s sister’s name from its order in proceedings related to his purported will.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order in a plaint filed by Sunjay's two children with former wife and actor Karisma Kapoor, challenging his purported will and seeking shares in the assets reportedly worth Rs 30,000 crore.
She allowed the application filed on behalf of Priya and her minor son, seeking removal of appearance of Mandhira Kapur from its September 10 order.
Senior advocates Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya, said including her name in the proceedings was “an attempt by Mandhira to gain a back door entry into the case”.
The application claimed the order dated “wrongfully reflects the appearance of counsel on behalf of Mandhira, even though she is not a party to the present proceedings".
(With PTI inputs)