New Delhi [India], January 23 : The Delhi High Court on Friday renotified for January 28 the civil suit filed by Rani Kapur concerning the dissolution of the RK Family Trust, after commencing a brief hearing in the matter. Observing that the issues raised require detailed consideration, the Court indicated that the case would need to be heard at length.
During the hearing, the bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan permitted the parties to file short written submissions to clarify any points arising from their preliminary arguments.
Rani Kapur, mother of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, has approached the Court questioning the circumstances surrounding the formation and administration of the RK Family Trust.
In her suit, she has alleged that the trust was created and operated without her informed knowledge or consent, resulting in her exclusion from the beneficial ownership of assets which she claims originally belonged to her.
According to the plaintiff, the relevant events took place at a time when she was medically unwell following a stroke and was dependent on her son for managing her personal and financial affairs. She has contended that she relied on assurances that her assets remained under her control and were being managed for her benefit.
The suit further alleges that her late son either acted under the influence or allowed himself to be used in implementing the trust arrangement. Rani Kapur has claimed that she continued to believe her estate was secure based on representations made to her, even as transactions were allegedly carried out that adversely affected her ownership rights.
She has also alleged that she was made to sign documents without being fully informed of their contents or legal implications and that certain documents were signed in blank. These allegations have been levelled against Priya Kapur and other defendants, who are accused of concealing the true nature and consequences of the trust structure.
Through the suit, Rani Kapur has sought cancellation of the RK Family Trust and restoration of her estate, asserting that the transactions were the result of misrepresentation and undue influence and were carried out without her informed consent.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor