The Delhi High Court on Thursday subjected the disputed Will of late industrialist Sanjay Kapur to rigorous judicial scrutiny, with Justice Jyoti Singh raising sharp questions over missing records, unexplained timelines and procedural lapses surrounding its execution, attestation and custod
During the day-long hearing, the Court focused squarely on the issues of proof, credibility and the chain of custody, signalling that inconsistencies in the Will’s origin and preservation could weigh heavily in determining its validity.
Digital Metadata Under Scanner
One of the most contentious elements was the digital footprint of the Will. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the plaintiff, highlighted that the metadata of the first digital version allegedly traced back not to Kapur or any known adviser, but to the computer of Nitin Sharma — a person with no established personal or professional proximity to Sanjay Kapur.
The Court asked why such a crucial document would originate from a third party’s device, especially when Sharma was appointed to the board of AIPL shortly after Kapur’s death. Justice Singh indicated that informal screenshots or secondary references cannot substitute formal, certified digital evidence.
Late Attestation Casts Doubt
Justice Singh also questioned the belated filing of affidavits by the attesting witnesses, asking whether affidavits introduced only after repeated objections could be accepted as conclusive proof of execution.
The witnesses, the Court noted, failed to specify the exact time and place of signing, offering only a vague reference to “Gurgaon,” which constitutes a suspicious circumstance under probate law.
Unexplained Movement of the Original Will
The Court expressed concern over the unexplained movement of the physical original. According to submissions, a scanned version had been created and circulated digitally, while the physical document surfaced later with another individual.
Justice Singh emphasised that in high-value estates, any break in the chain of custody demands strict scrutiny, especially when there is no clear record of how the original moved from Kapur to the present proponent. Jethmalani argued that no coherent timeline exists showing when Kapur last held the original or how it changed hands.
Sealed Cover Filings Questioned
The Court also questioned the filing of the Will and asset details in sealed cover, reminding the parties that once relied upon, affidavits cannot ordinarily be shielded from judicial examination. Justice Singh said the secrecy maintained was inconsistent with procedural discipline.
New Claims Without Documents Rejected
The bench further flagged whether explanations — including references to corporate restructuring raised for Priya Sachdev Kapur — were being argued without documentary backing. The Court reiterated that only materials formally placed on record can be recognised, and oral assertions cannot replace documentary evidence.
Court Signals Zero Tolerance for Gaps
Thursday’s hearing made it clear that the Court is focused not on narratives but on strict, documentary proof. With unresolved questions surrounding authorship, attestation, digital origin, and the chain of custody, the High Court signalled that inconsistencies, if not addressed, may seriously undermine the Will’s credibility.
