Justice Jyoti Singh rebukes Priya Kapur’s counsel Rajiv Nayar as procedural arguments collapse before Mahesh Jethmalani’s powerful case exposing Sunjay Kapur’s “forged and careless” Will
October 15, 2025:
The cracks in Priya Kapur’s defence widened dramatically on Wednesday as her counsel, Rajiv Nayar, struggled to defend a Will that appears increasingly implausible — a document riddled with inconsistencies and procedural evasions at the heart of the inheritance battle over late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s vast personal estate.
Appearing before Justice Jyoti Singh in the Delhi High Court, Nayar leaned heavily on technical objections — arguing that Sunjay’s children, Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, had failed to formally challenge the Will in their suit for partition. But the courtroom quickly turned tense as Justice Singh dismantled his procedural defence point by point, questioning both the logic and fairness of his submissions.
Justice Singh’s remarks indicated how Nayar’s arguments focused on form rather than substance and did little to dispel the deep suspicion surrounding the March 21, 2025 document that purports to leave most of Sunjay’s personal assets to his third wife, Priya.
The courtroom atmosphere was telling. Nayar’s submissions — heavy on process but light on explanation — did not dent the growing perception that the Will’s authenticity is in serious doubt.
When Nayar contended that the plaintiffs’ suit was “not maintainable” because they had not sought formal relief declaring the Will invalid — and that they had known about the Will since July 30, 2025 — the judge interjected sharply. “Were the plaintiffs given a copy of the Will on July 30,” she asked, “or was it merely read out to them?”
A hesitant Nayar admitted it had only been read out, not shared. Justice Singh then pressed further: “So how could they be expected to challenge what they had not even seen?”
When Nayar added that a copy of the Will had eventually been handed over to the plaintiffs on September 15, following a court order dated September 10, he argued that they had still failed to amend their suit. But the judge was quick to rebuke him again — noting that Priya Kapur and another defendant had themselves filed their written statement belatedly on October 13, well past the October 1 deadline. “You cannot expect a replication at rocket speed,” the judge said pointedly, drawing murmurs of approval from the gallery.
A Weak Defence Exposed
By now, the cracks in Nayar’s defence were showing. The senior lawyer’s attempt to rely on family precedent — invoking the late Surinder Kapur’s Will, where family employee Dinesh Agrawal had also been a witness — fared no better. He argued that since Dinesh had been a trusted aide since 1998 and had witnessed Surinder’s Will, it was “natural” he would witness Sunjay’s Will too. He went further, claiming it was “family tradition” for the Kapurs to leave their estates to their wives rather than their children.
That line of argument met with another curt judicial remark. Justice Singh reminded the court that the children’s mother seeks nothing for herself — the suit is purely to safeguard the rights of Sunjay’s two children, Samaira and Kiaan. The judge’s observation captured the moral heart of the case — that this was not a fight for wealth, but a fight for justice and recognition.
A Will That Defies Logic
The Will at the centre of the dispute — purportedly signed just days before Sunjay’s death — has been under intense scrutiny since senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Samaira and Kiaan, began his submissions earlier this week. Jethmalani described the document as “a careless forgery that insults the intelligence and character of the man it claims to represent.”
Known for his meticulousness, Sunjay Kapur, heir to the Sona Group, would never have signed off on a document riddled with glaring mistakes — including misspelt names, wrong addresses, and the repeated use of the feminine term “testatrix” to describe a male testator.
“These are not innocent slips,” Jethmalani told the court. “They are the fingerprints of a forged hand — a hand unfamiliar with the man it pretends to be.”
He argued that the Will was “false in spirit and intent”, designed to erase Sunjay’s own children and mother from his legacy. The argument resonated deeply in the courtroom. By Wednesday, when Nayar rose to respond, the momentum had already shifted decisively toward the plaintiffs.
Nayar’s Fragile Counter
Nayar’s counterarguments fell back on process, not substance. He dismissed the Will’s inaccuracies — including the bizarre use of “testatrix” — as “trivialities,” insisting they did not affect its validity. But Justice Singh’s repeated interruptions signalled the court’s impatience.
The judge’s remarks throughout the session — questioning the timeline, admonishing delayed filings, and challenging the logic of Nayar’s procedural claims — painted a clear picture: the defence was faltering under scrutiny. Observers noted that the senior advocate’s arguments sounded “more like avoidance than defence.”
Nayar’s counterarguments offered no convincing explanation for the document’s errors. Instead, he built his case on procedural scaffolding, asserting that since the plaintiffs had known about the Will since July 30, their September 9 plaint was “deficient” for not directly challenging it.
By focusing on procedural form, Nayar sidestepped the very questions that matter most: Why is the Will so error-ridden? Why was it disclosed late? And why does it read like the work of a stranger rather than a spouse?
“When you’re arguing over paperwork while the other side is proving forgery,” one lawyer whispered, “you’ve already lost the moral ground.”
A Fight for Truth, Not Fortune
Filed by Samaira and Kiaan Kapur through advocates Shantanu Agarwal and Manas Arora, the suit seeks a preliminary decree for partition granting each child a one-fifth share of Sunjay’s estate, and an injunction preventing Priya Kapur and the alleged executor Shradha Suri Marwah from disposing of assets.
The children’s case is anchored not in greed but in principle — to uphold the dignity and legacy of a father they believe has been misrepresented. Rani Kapur, Sunjay’s mother and co-plaintiff, has called the case “a fight to protect the truth of my son’s legacy.”
Those close to the family say the case is not about money but about restoring dignity and ensuring that Sunjay’s real intentions are honoured.
 |
Ms. Soumya Vajpayee, Senior Entertainment & Lifestyle Journalist |
