Jethmalani argued that Priya Kapur’s removal as Managing Director of AIPL on 31 May 2023 was an ouster, not a “position swap”, dismantling a central plank of her defence with documentary records and corporate filings.
Mahesh Jethmalani: “It’s factually incorrect. Priya was never made the MD of Raghuvanshi Investment (RIPL). There was no swap, she was not even the director of the company. She was removed from AIPL on 31st of May 2023, but sought to acquire the position a day after Sunjay’s demise… Priya’s claim about maintaining a blended family and Karisma joining her for vacations and family dinners was all a public façade.”
A Forced Exit, Not a Corporate Reassignment
Jethmalani told the court that Priya Kapur ceased to hold office at AIPL amid escalating marital discord with Sunjay Kapur. The defence narrative that she was moved to Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd (RIPL) while Sunjay took over her AIPL role, was described as factually unsustainable.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs records show that Priya Kapur was never Managing Director of RIPL, nor did she serve as a director of RIPL at any point before Sunjay Kapur’s demise. “There was no swap,” Jethmalani argued. “She was removed from AIPL and had no alternate role elsewhere.”
The absence of any contemporaneous appointment at RIPL fatally weakens the claim of a consensual restructuring. Instead, the timeline supports the inference of a managerial removal arising from personal rupture undercutting Priya’s portrayal of a stable, blended family and a harmonious business transition.
The Post-Death Rush Back to Control
If Priya’s 2023 exit was orderly, Jethmalani argued why did her return to AIPL occur immediately only after Sunjay Kapur’s demise?The answer, according to the plaintiffs, lies in the sequence of post-death appointments. On 13 June, just a day after Sunjay Kapur passed away, Priya was appointed a director of AIPL. By 20 June, she had reinstated herself as Managing Director.
Jethmalani characterised this as a calculated consolidation of power, enabled by the sudden vacuum created by Sunjay’s death and accompanied by the production of a Will that is now heavily contested. “She was not in control when Sunjay was alive,” he said. “She sought control only after his passing.”
A Will That Facilitates, Not Reflects, Control
The argument over Priya’s corporate role feeds directly into the wider dispute over Sunjay’s alleged Will. The plaintiffs (Samaira and Kiaan) contend that the Will’s emergence conveniently coincides with her re-entry into AIPL, allowing her to legitimise post-death actions that had no basis during Sunjay’s lifetime.
Jethmalani underscored that the named executor, Shardha Suri Marwah, did not probate the Will, did not assume custody of assets and later attempted to shift responsibility back to Priya, an act he described as legally untenable. “You cannot rely on the sanctity of a Will while disregarding its mandatory directions,” he told the court.
Mahesh Jethmalani: “Executors cannot be appointed without consent or at least without prior consultation…Defendant no.4 (Shradha Suri) has acted in complete dereliction to the alleged Will. She was supposed to seek probate as per the Will itself, however, she chose not to. She did not take control of assets as required under law. She should be removed as an Executor,” argued Jethmalani, while adding that as per the extant law.
The “Deleted Email” Claim: Impossibility, Glaring contradiction and Suppression of a Key Attachment
Shradha claims she received an email from Dinesh Agarwal containing the Will and later “deleted” it. However, an email attachment cannot be deleted without deleting the email itself, said Jethmalani. Yet the email is on record, while the critical attachment is missing. Between Dinesh’s first email, where he erroneously attached a trustee document, and his corrected email sending the scanned Will, an “important attachment has vanished”. Priya Kapur’s own documents show this omission. When asked for inspection, the response was that the email was “deleted,” which is impossible because she produced the same email in court. The Court itself flagged this as a highly suspicious suppression.
Mahesh Jethmalani: “You cannot delete the attachment without deleting the email. Why would she delete it. She said she deleted it because Dinesh Agarwal asked her to delete it. However, the document was produced and mentioned in the written statement.”
Tuesday’s hearing redefined the case. With the matter returning to court on 22 December, Priya Kapur’s credibility, corporate conduct and disclosure obligations now stand at the centre of an inheritance battle with implications far beyond the Kapur family boardroom.
