Family Feud: Is It Money, Ego Or Control?

To my mind, this was one of the more unusual messages delivered by the Delhi High Court —practical yet philosophical. The case involved a family feud over a Rs 30,000-crore estate that arose after the untimely death of 53-year-old industrialist Sunjay Kapur of Sona Comstar in June 2025.

The battle for a share of the spoils was between Sunjay’s third wife, Priya Sachdeva Kapur; his mother, Rani Kapur; his second wife, actor Karisma Kapoor; and Karisma’s two children. Matters were turning ugly, with Priya accusing her mother-in-law of perjury.

This “washing of dirty linen in public” prompted Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court to offer gentle advice to the warring parties. “God has blessed the family with significant wealth that should be enjoyed by everyone,” said Justice Pushkarna, urging Rani Kapur, Priya Kapur, Karisma Kapoor and her two children to consider mediation to resolve the dispute.

Sensible advice indeed. But corporate history shows that washing dirty linen in public is more the norm than the exception when business families split. By hook or by crook, the battle must be won—never mind the reputational damage.

Earlier, we witnessed a similarly high-profile drama involving brothers Lalit Modi and Samir Modi, and their mother Bina, wife of industrialist KK Modi who passed away in 2019.

According to an Economic Times report, “Samir Modi, son of the late KK Modi, has taken legal action against his mother, Bina Modi, accusing her of mishandling the family’s Rs 11,000-crore inheritance. The dispute involves the distribution of the Godfrey Phillips stake and other Modi group shares. Samir, once aligned with his mother, now supports his brother Lalit in seeking immediate implementation of the trust deed. The family had initially disagreed on dissolving the trust, leading to legal battles initiated by Lalit Modi.”

KK Modi’s will has become the bone of contention. As interpreted by Bina Modi, she would take charge of the group, with all business decisions overseen through a Family Trust.

This was unacceptable to fugitive Lalit Modi, who insisted that major decisions—including leadership—must be resolved through arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. His mother rejected this approach.

The nub of the problem is how the businesses --Godfrey Phillips, Indofil, the retail ventures and Modicare -- should be divided between the mother and her two sons. The “who gets what, and who runs what” issue has been in Indian courts for six years.

The feud took an ugly turn in 2024 when Samir Modi was physically assaulted by his mother’s personal security officer while attempting to attend a board meeting. Two years later, in February 2026, a Delhi court issued summons to industrialist Bina Modi.

But the mother of all family feuds was undoubtedly the Ambani split. Few expected a visionary like Dhirubhai Ambani—who disrupted the polyester and telecom sectors—not to have a succession plan.

Those in the know say it may have been deliberate. With no written will, he may have hoped his sons would be forced to work together. They did not.

Dhirubhai died in 2002, and soon after, an intense struggle for control erupted between Mukesh and Anil. As negative publicity mounted, their mother, Kokilaben Ambani, stepped in to broker peace and ensure the dispute ended amicably. She relied on two stalwarts—K V Kamath and Nimesh Kampani—both close confidants of Dhirubhai.

Super-banker K V Kamath devised the financial formula to divide the group, while veteran investment banker Nimesh Kampani of JM Morgan Stanley helped value the assets.

Three years after Dhirubhai’s death, a formal demerger was announced in June 2005. As one business journalist wrote: “Two Ambanis are better than one for the economy.”

Initially, both Mukesh and Anil grew rapidly, but Anil eventually became embroiled in legal troubles and is now being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged financial irregularities. Mukesh, meanwhile, has emerged as a global business phenomenon, with a net worth of over $105 billion.

Since Independence, most business family splits have been acrimonious—well documented in the cases of the Kamanis, Dalmia-Sahu Jains, Khataus, Mafatlals, and Singhanias.

Amicable splits are fewer, but notable. Rama Prasad Goenka, India’s first takeover tycoon, divided his group in 2011 between sons Harsh and Sanjiv—both of whom continue to lead thriving conglomerates.

Likewise, in April 2024, the 127-year-old Godrej Group amicably reorganised itself. The enterprise was split into two parts: Adi Godrej and brother Nadir retained the listed Godrej Industries Group, while cousins Jamshyd Godrej and Smita Godrej Crishna took over the unlisted Godrej Enterprises Group, including the massive Vikhroli land bank.

In 2009, the OP Jindal Group created four holding companies out of 30 investment entities. Shares were divided equally—20 per cent each—for the four brothers and their mother Savitri Devi. Each brother controlled one holding company and would eventually inherit their mother’s stake to hold 40 per cent.

The Munjals of Hero MotoCorp also untangled cross-holdings in more than 20 group companies so each family branch controlled the businesses they managed.

Rahul Bajaj who had a bitter split with his younger brother Shishir, ensured a smooth transition of his companies to his sons Rajiv and Sanjiv in 2008. The Shrirams, Thapars and Burmans also managed orderly successions.

Among India’s business clans, the Ruias of Essar deserve special mention. The late Shashi Ruia and his brother Ravi not only ran the business together but ensured their children—Prashant and Anshuman (Shashi’s sons), and Rewant and Smiti Kanodia (Ravi’s children)—did so as well. Interestingly, all except Smiti continue to live together in the tony Ruia Mansion.

Looking across decades of family splits, one conclusion stands out: the root cause of most feuds is simple—who sits at the head of the table. In other words, it is a potent mix of money, ego and control. Differences in vision, generational gaps and, in some cases, the influence of spouses also play their part.

Finally, who wins and who loses these high-profile battles? Amicable splits usually win—they avoid bad blood, prolonged litigation, negative publicity and emotional trauma. Corporate history shows that many once-influential business houses with acrimonious splits faded away or survived only in name. Those that continue to thrive are, more often than not, the ones that were divided peacefully.