Succession, an Indian saga: Sunjay Kapur case highlights need for planning

The sudden death of Sona Comstar chairman Sunjay Kapur has sparked a legal battle for his vast assets, involving his wife, mother, and two children from a previous marriage. As court hearings resume today, experts say there’s a need for clear succession plans to be laid down by corporate families in India, given the impact long-drawn-out legal battles can have on the market  

 

It all started on the afternoon of June 12, when Delhi-based industrialist Sunjay Kapur collapsed and passed away while playing a polo match in Windsor, UK, after suffering a heart attack. The sudden death of the billionaire chairman of Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd (it trades as Sona Comstar) left his family and the industry in shock. 

In the three months that have followed, the story has moved from a focus on the future of the auto-component maker to a battle for Kapur’s estate. With the matter having reached the courts, people close to the proceedings say the dispute appears to be veering towards what comprises his estate — specifically, whether it includes his holding in Sona Comstar. 

The legacy 

Kapur’s vast assets stem from his inheritance of Sona Group, an auto component conglomerate built by his father, Surinder Kapur. In 2015, Sunjay took over the business following his father’s death. By 2016, with a final assembly and finishing plant in Hangzhou, China, every second car in India had a Sona component. Over the years, new plants in the US and India were added, and in 2019, the company adopted the brand name Sona Comstar. 

In 2021, when Sona Comstar went public, it was valued at ₹17,000 crore. As of June 10 this year, its market capitalisation stood at ₹32,118 crore, according to NSE, and it is now part of the Nifty Midcap 150 Index. Sunjay held 28 per cent in Sona Comstar through promoter entity Aureus Investment Private Ltd (AIPL), which is the single largest shareholder of the company. Rani Kapur-RK Family Trust and Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd, promoter group entities, own 65 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively, of AIPL. 

On July 25, Sona Comstar said it was informed in May 2019 that Sunjay  was declared the sole beneficiary-owner of RK Family Trust. 

The dispute 

A month after Sunjay’s funeral in Delhi, his mother, Rani Kapur, wrote to the Sona Comstar board on July 24, asking it not to proceed with plans to appoint Sunjay’s widow, Priya Sachdev Kapur, as an additional non-executive director. The matriarch alleged that certain family members had attempted to seize control of Sona Comstar. “I still don’t know what happened to my son,” Rani Kapur told ANI in an interview dated July 29. She also alleged that she was coerced into signing some documents.  Rani cited a 2015 will of her late husband to claim she was the sole beneficiary of her husband’s estate. 

Sona Comstar, however, clarified that Rani Kapur was neither a shareholder nor a director or officer of the company, noting that she had no locus standi in the matter. “Any insinuation that she was coerced into signing documents or that her consent is required for company affairs is completely baseless and legally untenable,” thecompany said in a statement to BSE on July 25. 

In the three months from June 12, the share price of Sona Comstar has taken a beating. From June 11, when the stock was priced at ₹518.9, it had fallen to ₹414.4 apiece on October 7. Its market cap has also suffered, falling from ₹32,118 crore on June 10, according to NSE, to ₹25,764.12 crore on October 7 evening.

 

Following Sunjay’s death, Priya and their six-year-old son, Azarius, were made significant beneficiary owners of the RK Trust. His children, Samaira and Kiaan, from a previous marriage to Bollywood actor Karisma Kapoor were also added to the list of beneficiary owners. On June 20, Priya was made the managing director of AIPL on a monthly salary of  ₹1 crore, plus perks. 

The will 

On September 9, Karisma’s children took Priya to court demanding they be declared legal heirs to their father’s estate and be given one-fifth share each, while contesting the validity of a purported will dated March 21, which leaves all of Sunjay’s personal property to Priya. In their petition to the Delhi High Court, the children said they were informed of the reported will at a family meeting at Taj Mansingh Hotel in Delhi on July 30, but that the document was neither shared with them nor shown to them to be examined legally. Prior to this meeting, the existence of the will was not revealed, they added. The petition by Samaira and Kiaan has been filed against Priya, her son, Azarius, Rani Kapur, and the will’s executor, Shradha Suri Marwah, MD of Subros Ltd, a Delhi-based autocomponents maker. The petition also names Nitin Sharma and Dinesh Agarwal, directors at AIPL. 

The children said in the petition they believe the will was not registered, since that particular aspect — of Sunjay leaving all his personal property to Priya — was not clarified when the will was revealed. The petition says that when the children went to the UK between June 14 and 17, after Sunjay’s death, Priya had said there was no will and that all of Sunjay’s assets were housed under the RK Family Trust. 

The legal battle has widened with Rani Kapur joining the petition against Priya, alleging that she had not been informed of any documents regarding her son’s will and that her rights under the Trust had been eroded after Sunjay’s marriage to Priya. She claimed shares of Sona Comstar were sold to an unnamed Singapore entity for ₹500 crore without her knowledge. Rani alleged that she has no roof over her head, while claiming assets worth ₹10,000 crore.   

Experts said the Sona Comstar saga exemplifies the classic clash between promoter family legacy and corporate governance, raising questions about control, succession, and boardroom autonomy. 

“Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with internal management unless there is clear evidence of illegality, oppression, or mismanagement,” said Soayib Qureshi, partner, PSL Advocates and Solicitors. 

“However, [companies] also face risks. Allegations of coercion, exclusion of family members from crucial decisions following the promoter’s death, or suspicious timing of board changes can invite judicial scrutiny and interim reliefs like preservation of records or status quo orders,” Qureshi said, adding, “Such claims can also create reputational challenges, regulatory attention, and shareholder pressure, all of which could affect governance stability.” 

Under Indian law, registration of a will is not mandatory, and the legal outcome depends not on registration but on the fulfilment of statutory requirements — that is, due execution, proper attestation by two witnesses, the testator’s mental capacity, and the absence of suspicious circumstances. 

“The courts have consistently emphasised that registration alone is not conclusive proof of validity. What truly matters in a succession dispute is the authenticity of the document, the circumstances under which it was made, and the strength of the evidence presented to prove it,” Qureshi said. 

The estate 

Aside from the purported will, there are questions on Sunjay’s estate valuation. During the hearing of the petition filed by Karisma’s children in the Delhi High Court on September 10, lawyers representing Priya said the beneficial interests of Karisma’s children in the promoter company, worth ₹1,900 crore, was secured. However, the children’s lawyers said that no access to the funds was given. 

The Delhi High Court asked Priya Kapur to submit the details of all of Sunjay Kapur’s assets in a sealed cover, and issued directions to all parties to keep the details confidential and not leak them to the press. According to a Forbes India list of billionaires, as of June 2025, Sunjay Kapur’s net worth was $1.2 billion, or ₹10,300 crore, with a major portion of the value coming from his shareholding in Sona Comstar. 

While Karisma’s children have asked for a share of the estate as legal heirs, they have not specified the valuation of the estate or the assets that fall within the estate. Their petition states that information on all movable and immovable assets should be made available, including the properties and effects of Sunjay Kapur, equity shares in listed companies, shares in private limited companies, fixed deposits in various banks, units of mutual funds, and bank accounts in his name. 

Legal experts point to a wider problem. 

“Succession crisis owing to uncertainty in testamentary documents can lead to serious legal complications in a country like India owing to the interplay of multiple laws and implications,” said Aslam Ahmed, partner, Singhania and Co. “In the corporate landscape, absence of a clear succession plan can be fatal to not only the stakeholders, but even the investors and market beneficiaries,” Ahmed added. 

Past disputes, such as the Tata–Mistry corporate battle, and succession conflicts in companies like Raymond and Kirloskar, demonstrate that the resolution often comes not just from court judgments but also through negotiated settlements once both sides’ leverage and legal positions become clearer, said Qureshi. 

“Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the credibility of witnesses, consistency in the testator’s intent, and how the will aligns with family and business realities,” said Sudhir Raja Ravindran, attorney-at-law, solicitor (England & Wales) at Altacit Global.

As lawyers in the Sunjay Kapur case shuffle into the courtroom once again, legal experts say Indian business families and corporate scions must plan their succession early in order to avoid such complications. And it can’t hurt to take stakeholders into confidence.