₹30,000-Crore Kapur Dispute: Supreme Court Tells Parties Not To Take Steps Affecting Mediation

The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard senior counsels representing the parties, as concerns were raised over a proposed board meeting involving a company at the centre of the dispute.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared via video conference for Karishma Kapoor and her children, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented one of the respondents. Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa appearing for Rani Kapur also addressed the Court, flagging developments that allegedly took place during the mediation process.

The Court questioned the urgency of the renewed filings. Justice Pardiwala remarked that once parties had agreed to mediation, they were expected to cooperate rather than return repeatedly to litigation. “Why are you again here? If you are not interested in mediation, we will hear it,” the Court observed.

Pahwa submitted that despite the Supreme Court referring the matter to mediation, a notice had been issued for a board meeting proposing the induction of two independent directors in a company holding significant shares in Sona Comstar. He argued that such steps would alter control dynamics in the background of an already fragile dispute.

“Who is managing it?” the Court asked during the hearing, noting the sensitivity of the corporate structure involved.

He further alleged that key shareholding structures had been altered within family trusts even before mediation began, leading to what he described as an attempt to dilute control.

Kapil Sibal, however, countered that the company in question has been operating since 2014 and was acting in compliance with regulatory directions, including RBI requirements to appoint independent directors.

The Court observed that mediation must be allowed to proceed without actions that could tilt the balance of the dispute. It also indicated that it would engage with the RBI on the issue but emphasised that the mediation process must continue uninterrupted for now.

Justice Pardiwala noted that the dispute involved an 80-year-old family member and cautioned all sides to approach the matter with restraint and sensitivity.

“Once we referred it to mediation, we expect cooperation. Otherwise, we will decide it ourselves,” the Court said, adding that the goal was to avoid a prolonged corporate battle.

The bench also remarked that interfering actions during mediation would only complicate resolution efforts and directed parties to refrain from pursuing contested agenda items linked to control and financial authority until further review.

Justice Pardiwala remarked, "She is an 80-year-old woman. We came with empty hands and will go with empty hands. All we carry is our souls. There must be a will to settle the matter. Do not go before the mediator with a heavy heart. Each one of you must try."

Kapil Sibal added, “That’s how it is… naked we come and naked we go."

The matter will be taken up again after the court vacation on August 6, once the mediator reports on the progress of discussions between the parties.