The courtroom drama surrounding Sunjay Kapur’s estate escalates, with his sister Mandhira Kapur Smith insisting that widow Priya Sachdev Kapur produce critical documents in a defamation case. Scheduled for a hearing on March 30, 2026, the court’s intervention has sparked debates over the documents’ relevance, as Priya’s legal counsel contends they are public and should remain unissued. Read on to know more in detail.
The legal dispute over the late businessman Sunjay Kapur’s massive fortune involving his widow, Priya Sachdev Kapur; sister, Mandhira Kapur Smith; and kids with ex-wife, Karisma Kapoor, is still ongoing. The Patiala House Court has issued notice on a plea submitted by the late business tycoon’s sister seeking the production of certain documents from Priya Sachdev Kapur.As per ANI, Mandhira Kapur filed her reply to the defamation complaint submitted against her by Priya Sachdev Kapur. Along with her response, she also moved an application seeking directions for the production of certain documents from the complainant.Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Siddhant Sihag heard the preliminary arguments on the application. Now, the court will hear the matter on March 30, 2026. The Justice also gave the counsel for the proposed accused, Pooja Chaudhary, time to file a reply. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Priya Kapur, submitted to the court that Mandhira Kapur’s application was not maintainable at the present stage of the proceedings. He stated that he does not wish to file a formal reply but reserves his right to argue on points of law.Mandhira Kapur appeared before the court after a notice was issued against her on a previous date. Advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for Mandhira Kapur, filed the reply along with an application stating that the alleged defamatory words should not be viewed in isolation. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Priya Kapur, opposed the application. Opposing the plea seeking directions for document production, Singh argued that the matter is currently at the stage of notice, not at the stage of charge. Therefore, the application for the production of documents cannot be filed at this stage. The Senior Advocate also submitted that the proposed accused, Mandhira Kapur, has not denied the statement. It has not been claimed that the content is morphed or manipulated.Advocate Amit Prasad, counsel for Mandhira Kapur, submitted that the judgment cited by the complainant’s counsel is not relevant in this case, as this is a complaint case. He argued that the judgment the complainant relied upon applies only to cases filed by the state in criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the Senior Advocate argued that such an application becomes relevant only after the court takes cognizance and at the appropriate stage of proceedings. Since there is no denial of the statement, Mandhira Kapur, counsel for the complainant, argued that the defendant may seek the documents at the stage of charge.He further submitted that this is not a civil case; rather, the accused are defendants in a criminal defamation case for allegedly tarnishing the complainant’s image in the eyes of the public. Therefore, a plea seeking production of documents is not applicable at this stage. The Senior Advocate also argued that all documents Mandhira Kapur sought relate to property, trusts, and other matters unconnected with the present complaint and are already in the public domain. He stated that she is already aware of these matters.On January 21, the Patiala House Court issued a notice to the proposed accused, Mandhira Kapur and Pooja Chaudhary.The court recorded the statements of Priya Sachdev Kapur and her sister Charu Sachdev in the defamation complaint filed by Priya Kapur against Mandhira Kapur and another.Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, along with Advocates Smriti Asmita and Jhanvi Narang, appeared for Priya Sachdev Kapur. Priya Sachdev Kapur filed a criminal defamation complaint against Sunjay Kapur’s sister, Mandhira Kapur Smith, and another individual, alleging that a series of statements made against her across podcasts, social media platforms, media interviews, and republished online content constitute a sustained and deliberate campaign to damage her reputation.The complaint asserts that the impugned remarks contain false assertions, insinuations, and personal attacks presented as established facts, despite the issues being sub judice, thereby causing serious reputational harm.According to the complaint, the material circulated in the public domain advances misleading narratives and allegations aimed at maligning and harassing Priya Kapur through public discourse instead of pursuing lawful remedies.Senior Advocate Maninder Singh submitted that such conduct squarely attracts the offense of criminal defamation under the applicable law.The defamation case filing follows recent developments in connected proceedings, in which the court sought a response from actor Karisma Kapoor regarding a plea moved by Priya Kapur seeking certified copies of divorce-related court records involving the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur. Against this backdrop, Mandhira Kapur Smith made public remarks to the media questioning Priya Kapur’s conduct and motives. She stated that if her brother had intended to share certain information, he would have done so during the marriage. She further remarked that divorce proceedings are confidential, particularly where children are involved. Priya Kapur alleged that these statements form part of the defamatory material she complained of and approached the court through Senior Advocate Maninder Singh seeking criminal action for the alleged damage to her reputation.
