After the death of Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor’s former husband and industrialist Sanjay Kapoor in June, a huge dispute has come to light in the family regarding his property worth Rs 30,000 crore. In this case, Delhi High Court has reserved its order after hearing the arguments of all the parties. Sanjay Kapoor’s two children from Karisma Kapoor, Samaira Kapoor and Kiyan Raj Kapoor, have approached the court.

Allegation filed in Delhi High Court regarding Sanjay Kapoor’s will

Karisma Kapoor’s children allege that the will presented by his wife Priya Sachdev Kapoor after Sanjay’s death could be fake and fabricated. It has been said in the petition that even the signature on the will does not appear to be Sanjay’s. The children have demanded their rights in the property. Very sharp allegations have been made against Priya Kapoor in the petition. She has been described as greedy and has even been said to behave like Cinderella’s stepmother.

Sanjay Kapoor’s mother also raised questions regarding the will.

Sanjay’s mother Rani Kapoor has also challenged this will in the Delhi High Court. Rani Kapoor says that she was never informed about any such will in her son’s life and her name is not even in the document. Senior advocate Rajeev Nair, appearing for Priya Kapoor in the case, rejected all the allegations outright. He told the court that the complete list of properties has already been filed along with the documents.

Priya Kapoor’s lawyer called all the arguments baseless

The lawyer appearing on behalf of Priya Kapoor in Delhi High Court said that it is wrong to say that Sanjay’s annual income is Rs 60 crore. On the questions raised regarding an allegedly expensive watch Rolex, he said that the picture being cited was taken from a fake social media account. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the children, said that there are many serious flaws in the will and doubts arise. He demanded from the court that Priya Kapoor should be stopped from selling or using the property till the final decision.

Delhi High Court reserved the decision after everyone’s arguments

In Delhi High Court, Justice Jyoti Singh made it clear that now no new arguments or documents will be accepted and the court will give its decision soon. In such a situation, it is very important to see that the court now gives its verdict on the controversy regarding the will of Sanjay Kapoor.

Former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who is serving life imprisonment in the 2017 Unnao rape case of Uttar Pradesh, has got bail from the Delhi High Court and his sentence has been stayed. After this decision, protests started in Delhi, where the victim, her mother and women’s rights activists raised questions on the justice system.

A huge demonstration was seen near India Gate in protest against the order of Delhi High Court. Unnao rape case victim, her mother and women’s rights activist Yogita Bhayana participated in this protest. During the protest, Delhi Police removed the victim, her mother and Yogita Bhayana from the protest site.

What kind of justice is this?- Yogita Bhayana

Women’s rights activist Yogita Bhayana expressed her displeasure over the court’s decision by posting on social media platform X. He wrote, “Wow, the law of the country is the justice of the country. How will we save the country’s girls, how will they get justice! This girl is the victim of Unnao gangrape. Her father died in police custody after being brutally assaulted. Aunt and lawyer died in a car accident. More than 100 stitches were required, many bones were broken. She was saved on ventilator after 6 months of treatment and now…. What kind of justice is this??? The victim is crying for justice. She is saying that there is no other option except suicide.

#WATCH Delhi: Police remove 2017 Unnao rape case victim, her mother, and women activist Yogita Bhayana from the protest site near India Gate.

They were holding a protest against the Delhi High Court’s order suspending the sentence of 2017 Unnao rape case accused, Kuldeep… https://t.co/RTtewzObCz pic.twitter.com/Stuv4unBor

— ANI (@ANI) December 23, 2025

Victim’s mother’s demand and questions on justice

The victim’s mother has also expressed deep displeasure over the court’s decision. He said that it does not matter whether the accused lives at home or 500 kilometers away, what matters is that he has committed a crime and he should be punished. He agreed that both parties have the right to appeal, but the court should conduct a fair hearing keeping in mind the victim and the incidents that happened to him. He clearly says that in such a serious case the accused should not get bail at all. This statement shows that the victim’s family is still holding out hope for justice, but the recent verdict has dealt a deep blow to their faith.

The controversy regarding the property of late businessman Sanjay Kapoor is not stopping. His wife Priya Kapoor and his minor son claimed in the Delhi High Court that the court does not have the right to interfere or stop matters related to properties located in Britain and America.

On behalf of Priya Kapoor, it was said in the court that foreign property is a subject of foreign jurisdiction. According to him, Delhi High Court cannot stop him from trying to get ownership rights on Sanjay Kapoor’s immovable properties abroad.

Delhi High Court asked all parties to submit written arguments

Justice Jyoti Singh, who is hearing the case in Delhi High Court, while completing the hearing on the interim petition filed by Karisma Kapoor’s children, asked all the parties to file written arguments. The court has fixed December 22 for the next hearing of the case. This interim petition has been filed by the children of Karisma Kapoor, in which they have challenged the alleged will of their late father. It is being told that Sanjay Kapoor’s total assets were around Rs 30 thousand crores.

Court cannot ban property of America and Britain!

During the hearing in Delhi High Court, the lawyer appearing on behalf of Priya Kapoor’s minor son said that Priya Kapoor has no intention of selling her stake in Aureus Investments Pvt Ltd. However, he also clarified that Delhi High Court cannot order status quo on immovable properties located in America and Britain. According to him, the decision on it can be taken by the courts where the property is located.

Karisma Kapoor’s lawyer opposed Priya Kapoor’s argument

The lawyer appearing on behalf of Karisma Kapoor’s children in the Delhi High Court argued that if this is so, then the court can stop Priya Kapoor from claiming rights over the properties located abroad by using the alleged fake will. Earlier, Sanjay Kapoor’s mother Rani Kapoor had also told in the High Court that instead of mourning the death of her son, Priya Kapoor made every effort to gain control over his properties.

He claimed that he was never informed about his son’s will and there was no mention of his mother’s existence in the will. It is noteworthy that Sanjay Kapoor died suddenly on June 12 after collapsing during a polo match in England. It was told that he had suffered a heart attack.

During the hearing of a case in Delhi High Court, it was mentioned to implement the Uniform Civil Code. The Delhi High Court has emphasized whether the time has not come now that Uniform Civil Code should be implemented in India. On this, the court said that there is a big conflict in Muslim and Indian laws about children’s weddings.

In the case in Delhi High Court, Justice Arun Monga said that according to the Muslim law, if a girl reaches the puberty, then getting married is legal whereas under Indian criminal law, the husband becomes a criminal in such a marriage.

Delhi High Court raised important questions

The Delhi High Court raised the question whether it is right to make the society criminals just to follow their personal traditions .. Is it not the time that there should be a law that is equal for all and personal or religious laws are not above national law. The court said that the matter is entitled to parliamentary clarity and MLAs should decide whether the entire community is to be criminalized or to maintain peace with the clarity of the law for all.

Important comments of Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court said that the protests of the UCC warns to endanger the freedom of religion, but the freedom of religion cannot be to the extent that causes crime. A practical way may be that security measures such as prohibiting marriages of children should be implemented in every community.

What is the whole matter?

This case was related to a 24 -year -old person marrying a minor girl. The girl claimed that she was 20 years old, while prosecution said that she is 15–16 years old. The court, while giving relief to the accused, said that under Muslim personal law, the girl’s marriage is considered valid till the age of 15.

The court also said that whether the marriage is valid or not, the relationship between the accused and the girl was based on consent and both were in a legitimate relationship according to their religion. The court also convicted arrest and not providing information in the judicial process. The court again emphasized the need for UCC in this complex case and said that a permanent solution can come only from Parliament/Legislature.

A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court demanding the removal of the tombs of terrorists Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt in Delhi’s Tihar Jail. There was a demand from an organization named Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh that the tombs of both of them should be removed from the sacred land of India and transferred to the secret place. The court has refused to hear the petition. Due to this, the petitioner has withdrawn his petition.

The bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao questioned the petitioner that what is your fundamental right being violated by keeping these two graves in Tihar Jail? Which rule is being violated? The court clearly told the petitioner that no public interest litigation can be heard according to your wish.

Strange argument given in a petition seeking to remove the grave

The petitioner’s lawyer argued in the court, saying, “It is in the public domain that some people of their community commit crime outside. When they go to jail, they pay tribute to both these tombs. It is like the glory of terrorists.” The court objected to this argument.

The court said that we have already told you to keep your plea limited to legal aspects. You tell us what fundamental or constitutional right you are being violated? The petitioner’s counsel said that there is no provision that allows any convict to be punished in jail.

‘Someone’s funeral should be respected’- Court

The Delhi High Court said that you are originally against burial in jail. This happened in the year 2013, we are in 2025. Someone’s funeral should be respected. Keeping these issues in mind, the government decided to bury in jail. Can we challenge it after 12 years?

The High Court said that the tomb has been built with the consent of the officials, the jail is not a public place. It is a place owned by the state, which has been designed to capture the culprits.

Charges in petition- Jail was made a radical pilgrimage site

In the PIL filed in the High Court, it was requested to direct the concerned officials to transfer the body to a secret place if necessary, so that the ‘glorification of terrorism’ and the misuse of the jail premises could be stopped.

The petition alleged that the presence of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt’s tombs has converted the Tihar Central Jail to a radical pilgrimage site. Where extremist elements gather for the glimpse of the terrorists who were convicted.

While hearing the petition of the Aam Aadmi Party, the Delhi High Court told the Central Government that allotment of government bungalows cannot be done arbitrarily. The High Court made it clear that there should be a clear and transparent policy for this. In the petition filed in the court, the AAP has demanded a government residence to its national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi.

During the hearing of the case in the Delhi High Court, Justice Sachin Dutta asked the central government, “Is there any fixed process to allot bungalow. How it has been implemented so far, when the number of bungalows is limited then on what basis is the priority fixed. ”

Center argued in court on bungalow allocation

Arguing on behalf of the Central Government in the Delhi High Court, it was told that Type 7 Bungalow No. 35 in Lodi State, which was sought by the Aam Aadmi Party for Kejriwal. On July 14, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary has been allotted. This is the same bungalow that was vacated by Bahujan Samaj Party President Mayawati in May. The High Court directed which the government was allocated houses with its existing housing allocation policy affidavit and priority was assessed.

Delhi High Court expressed resentment

During the hearing of the case in the Delhi High Court, it also said that he has to see a big issue about how the discretion is used. Warning in the court, he said, “Can’t run like a free for all system where anyone gets home in a desired manner.” The High Court has asked the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to appear at the next hearing of the case and the Director of the Director of Estate Directorate of Housing and Urban Affairs.

AAP party lawyer gave important arguments

Giving the lawyer Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Aam Aadmi Party in the Delhi High Court, said, “The president of the recognized national party should get government accommodation as per the rules. Provided they do not have any private house in Delhi nor have they got housing on the basis of any other post. All the conditions are fulfilled in this case, so we are demanding housing in only one central place. ”Now the next hearing of this case will be held on September 25, in which the Center will have to put the entire policy and record before the court.

50 rupees coin: In the Delhi High Court, the central government informed that there is no plan to bring a coin of 50 rupees at present. The Finance Ministry has filed an affidavit that a survey conducted by the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2022 revealed that the general public prefers notes more than coins for 10 and 20.

In fact, during the hearing of a PIL in the Delhi High Court, this case came to light, which was filed by a petitioner named Rohit. The petition sought to make 50 and less worth of notes and coins more recognizable for visually impaired citizens.

What was said in the petition filed in Delhi High Court?
In the petition filed in the Delhi High Court, the petitioner claimed that he has studied the flaws in the currency design, which has found that the 50 rupee note would not be clearly different from other notes. At the same time, the Finance Ministry also admitted that new series notes with Mahatma Gandhi of 10, 20 and 50 do not have textile characteristics like Angular bleed lines and raised prints. Due to their high handling, these features are worn quickly. In the Delhi High Court, the Finance Ministry said that re -implementing these textile features will greatly affect the cost and efficiency.

Finance Ministry gave important information
The Finance Ministry said that although the size of every note in the new Mahatma Gandhi series is different, which visually impaired can identify them through touch. The ministry also acknowledged that both old and new series with Mahatma Gandhi’s photo are in the trend together, there could be difficulty in identity. The Finance Ministry has expressed confidence in the Delhi High Court that as the old series notes are naturally out of circulation, the specialty of the new series will make the identity very easy for the obstructed people.

Also read:

Before the call for the assembly elections, Bengal BJP President Samik Bhattacharya’s big statement – ‘Even though Muslim …’

Delhi high court: According to the new rule, which came into effect from 1 July in Delhi, 10 -year -old diesel and 15 year old petrol trains are not allowed to run on the road. Recognizing this rule, the petrol pump owners were not giving oil to these vehicles. However, he was still fined, due to which he filed a petition in the court. Now the court has issued a notice to the Delhi Government and the Commission for Air Quality Management Committee and sought a reply.

In the Delhi High Court, a bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna, while hearing a petition filed by the Delhi Petrol Dealers Association, has issued a notice to both the parties and listed the case for the next hearing in September.

Petitioners argued in Delhi HC

In fact, from July 1, the instructions for not giving petrol and diesel to the old vehicles in Delhi have been implemented by the Commission for Air Quality Management. For this, the Transport Department, Police and Traffic Department of Delhi Government have made a comprehensive strategy.

However, the petitioners have supported the intention behind these instructions, saying that they are opposed that such rules are being implemented on petrol pump owners, whose enforcement has no legal rights.

Does the rules not apply to petrol pump operators?

The lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Delhi HC argued that action is being taken against petrol pump operators under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, while this section does not apply to them. He said that petrol pump dealers are being given the responsibility of implementing the instructions being implemented by the Delhi government, which is out of their jurisdiction.

In such a situation, even if there is an unknowable lapse, they are being punished. It has also been said in the petition that about three thousand vehicles come to a petrol pump daily to fill the oil and sometimes oil is given from several units simultaneously, in which case the possibility of mistake cannot be ruled out.

Is it wrong to implement law on petrol pump owners?

According to the application filed in Delhi HC, petrol pump operators are private institutions that work on contract with oil marketing companies. Having the responsibility of implementing them the law is a violation of the principles of rule of law. However, the petition also acknowledged that strict steps are necessary for pollution control in the NCR area.

According to government officials, CNG -powered overseas vehicles are currently exempted from this rule. In such a situation, it will be very important to see what answer the government files on the petition filed in the court. In 2018, the Supreme Court banned diesel more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi. At the same time, the 2014 order of NGT also prohibits parking in public places of vehicles older than 15 years.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of the Delhi Waqf Board filed for a gurdwara in the martyrdom of Delhi. The court says that when there is already a religious structure there, then let it be. The Waqf Board had filed this petition challenging the 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court, in which the High Court had ruled in favor of the defendant. The defendant says that this land was sold to him in the year 1953.

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma were hearing the bench case. The bench told the Waqf Board that they should withdraw their claim on their own. On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghosh said that the Delhi High Court had also admitted that there was a mosque, but now there is some kind of gurudwara. On this, the court told the lawyer that there is no kind, there is a proper gurdwara.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, ‘There is a gurudwara on that land, which is also functioning. When there is a gurudwara, let him live. If a religious structure is already there, then you should withdraw your claim yourself.

The Waqf Board told the Supreme Court that there was a mosque named Babbar Shah at the disputed site. He said that this mosque was present since time immemorial and was dedicated to religious objectives. However, the defendant claims that in 1953, the disputed property was sold to him by his owner Mohammad Ehsan. In 2010, the Delhi High Court also ruled in favor of the defendant.

The High Court had said in its judgment that the defendant was occupied since 1947-48. It is also true that the defendant could not present any documents as the owner for the purchase of property, but the Waqf Board will not benefit. The court had said that if the board wants possession, then it will have to establish its case and present the documents.

Saurabh bharadwaj on demolition drive: A large -scale sabotage campaign has been conducted on Sunday (June 01) at the slum Madrasi camp located on the banks of Barapula Nalla in Jungpura, Delhi. Many slums have been removed. Former Delhi minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Saurabh Bhardwaj has responded to this. He surrounded Rekha Gupta government regarding this issue.

AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj wrote on the social media platform X, “Yesterday the Chief Minister of Delhi said that no slum will be broken, today the Barpula Madrasi camp was destroyed by the bulldores. Thousands of people snatched the roof from the heads. ”

Yesterday, the Chief Minister of Delhi said that no slum will be broken, today the Barpulla Madrasi camp was destroyed by the bulldores. He snatched the roof from the heads of the people.

Hon’ble CM @mkstalin MUST EXPOSE How BJP Treats People of Tamil Nadu in National Capital. pic.twitter.com/S9swqbljod

– saurabh bharadwaj (@saurabh_mlagk) June 1, 2025

Action after Delhi High Court directive

According to the news agency IANS, this action was taken after the Delhi High Court’s directive to vacate the area for cleaning and renovation of the drain. The campaign, which started amidst heavy deployment of paramilitary forces and Delhi Police, aims to remove more than 300 slums. Residents of the area have started protesting, expressing concern about insufficient rehabilitation, while some families have been offered alternative housing in Narela.

Flat offers in Narela to families living in slums

Of the 370 slums located on the site, 215 families have been identified as the Prime Minister’s ‘House there’ rehabilitation scheme as eligible for rehabilitation and they have been offered a flat in Narela. Initially, only 189 families were included in the rehabilitation plan. However, 26 more families were added to a revised list.

When was Madrasi camp formed?

Madrasi Camp, which was established between 1968 and 1970. It is being cleaned for a renovation project attached to the 16 km long Barapula drain. It is a Mughal -era structure that is estimated to be around 400 years old.