Appearing for Sunjay’s mother Rani Kapur, senior counsel Vaibhav Gaggar laid out a sequence of events that he said “raises more questions than answers,” describing the timeline as “deeply troubling for any corporate governance framework.”
According to Gaggar, on 31 March 2023, Sunjay had explicitly told stakeholders of AIPL and Sona Comstar that something needed to be ‘reversed’, following which Priya was removed as Managing Director of Aureus Investment (AIPL) — the holding company of Sona BLW (Sona Comstar).
Yet, within eight days of his death on 12 June, 2025 an Extraordinary General Meeting was convened, and the same Priya was reinstated as MD of AIPL. Within 11 days, she was also appointed as a director on the board of Sona BLW, regaining influence over the group’s crown jewel.
“The haste, the enthusiasm, the tearing urgency with which Priya Kapur assumed control makes the motives behind the Will even more suspect,” Gaggar told the court, arguing that the corporate actions and the Will “cannot be viewed in isolation.”
He argued Priya’s rapid ascent—in a period when Sunjay’s body had not even been handed over to the family by UK authorities—reflected a “disturbing preparedness” inconsistent with a grieving spouse.
He said that Priya Kapur has hidden the details from the Court and there is a suspicion that the money has been moved abroad.
Gaggar stated that his son’s annual salary was ₹60 crore and yet his bank balance shows less than ₹2 crore along with crypto assets of around ₹1.69 crore.
“Massive concealment. This house (farmhouse in Delhi’s Rajokri area) is built by my late husband. There are more than 50 pieces of artwork there… This gentleman (Sunjay Kapur) had no life insurance, no rental income, and mutual funds? Just his salary was Rs 60 crore, and we are saying that he has only Rs 1.7 crore in his accounts,” he said.
Unanswered Questions About Key Individuals in the Will
The counsel also raised pointed questions about Dinesh Agarwal and Nitin Sharma, the two men named as witnesses to the Will.
Gaggar told the court that while Nitin Shrma was not even associated with any Sona group firm before 2022, Agarwal was hospitalised just two days before the date on which he allegedly emailed the Will to executor Shradha Suri Marwah. “How did a man recently in hospital come to possess and forward a document of such importance?” he asked. And, how Sharma was made a witness in the Will even though he was not associated with the group or family till 2022, Gaggar questioned.
Rani’s repeated emails to Agarwal seeking clarity went unanswered for months, except for an eventual reply on 11 August, stating he was “not the custodian” of any documents regarding Sunjay’s assets. Gaggar argued this contradicted Priya’s claim that the same Agarwal was not just a witness but closely involved in the Will’s transmission.
Adding to the inconsistencies, Nitin Sharma, the second witness, was suddenly appointed to the board of AIPL after Sunjay’s death. “Why would a witness to a Will be elevated to the holding company’s board so quickly? Was this incentivisation?” Gaggar asked.
Family Left Out, Yet Strangers Involved
The Will allegedly makes Priya the sole beneficiary, completely excluding Sunjay’s children Samaira and Kiaan and even his mother, all of whom are Class-I legal heirs.
Gaggar argued that if Shradha Suri’s earlier claim is accepted—that Priya and Sunjay drafted the Will using Rani Kapur’s notarised Will as a template—then why was Priya’s version not notarised?
More troubling, he said, is that there is no evidence of any communication between Sunjay and Agarwal regarding estate matters. “Sunjay never mentioned Agarwal in any discussion about business, family or personal assets,” he said.
