MUMBAI: Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani dismantled the “position swap” narrative presented in court, asserting that Priya Kapur’s removal as Managing Director of AIPL, the holding company of Sona BLW was a direct outcome of serious marital discord between her and Sunjay Kapur in 2023. He said claims that Priya was simply “moved” to Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd (RIPL) as part of a routine reshuffle with Sunjay are contradicted by official Ministry of Corporate Affairs records. According to him, Priya was never the MD or even a director at RIPL at any point prior to Sunjay’s demise, making the “swap” theory demonstrably false.
Jethmalani laid out the sequence to underscore what he called opportunistic post-death corporate manoeuvring. Priya was removed from AIPL on 31 May 2023. Yet, a day after Sunjay passed away, on 13 June, she took over as director of AIPL, and by 20 June she reinstated herself as MD. This, he argued, clearly disproves the claim of a prior “swap” and instead shows a deliberate attempt to regain control after Sunjay’s death.
Mahesh Jethmalani stated verbatim in court: “It’s factually incorrect. Priya was never made the MD of 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.”
He further raised concerns over the alleged Will introduced by Priya, arguing that executor Shradha Suri Marwah failed to comply with the Will’s mandatory directions. The Will required the executor to take custody of all monies, properties and assets and to initiate probate—an explicit requirement under clause 3. Yet Shradha initiated neither. Instead, on 24 June 2025, she wrote to Priya asking her to probate the Will, implying recognition of her own responsibilities. Jethmalani said this non-compliance casts serious doubt on the Will’s authenticity, especially since an executor cannot be appointed without prior consent—something Shradha’s counsel earlier claimed was never given.
As stated in court: “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,” he argued.
Add new comment