The Supreme Court has granted interim relief to Rani Kapur in the ongoing family dispute over the Sona BLW promoter structure, staying key agenda items of an upcoming board meeting of Raghuvanshi Investments Private Ltd (RIPL), a non-banking financial company linked to the promoter group. The court restrained RIPL from proceeding with proposals related to the appointment of independent directors and changes in authorised bank signatories, while not halting the board meeting itself, which is scheduled for May 18 in Gurugram. The bench observed that such decisions could potentially affect the ongoing court-monitored mediation process. The Supreme Court has refused to stay a scheduled board meeting of the NBFC, which controls a substantial portion of the disputed estate amid the ongoing dispute over the Kapur family estate and family trust of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur between his mother Rani Kapur and wife Priya Kapur. In a significant development, the Supreme Court has now put on hold the appointment of two independent directors to RIPL for two months, providing immediate relief to Rani Kapur's concerns about control attempts.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a timely settlement is in everyone's best interest to avoid the consequences of a protracted legal conflict. The bench observed that material possessions are temporary and urged the family to find the internal will to settle, while cautioning the parties against participating in mediation half-heartedly or under duress, calling for genuine effort from everyone involved. Justice JB Pardiwala reportedly asked the parties to allow the mediation process to continue without disruption and cautioned against steps that could escalate the conflict further. During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala questioned the repeated approach to the court despite the matter being referred to mediation, stating "Why are you again here? If you all are not interested in mediation, we will not waste any time and we will hear it. Once we have sent it to mediation, we expect the parties to participate." The Court noted that mediation proceedings have been initiated and cautioned all parties against taking any actions that could undermine the process, with the bench observing that once a dispute is referred to mediation, all parties are expected to engage in the process sincerely. Justice Pardiwala-led Bench observed during the hearing: "We have been saying repeatedly that settle it. There is this 80-year-old woman. Sometime you have to compromise." The Bench also expressed frustration over repeated litigation despite earlier directions encouraging settlement talks, remarking "We all came with empty hands and will leave with empty hands from this world."
Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa, appearing for Rani Kapur, submitted that "My shareholding was transferred into the trust behind my back. I was holding the majority shares in all the companies. My daughter-in-law transferred my shareholding into a trust." According to her plea, Rani Kapur has alleged that she was unlawfully stripped of her legacy, estate, and residence through what she describes as a fraudulent instrument known as the RK Family Trust or Rani Kapur Family Trust. Rani Kapur's side argued that after her husband's death, she had near-complete control over the group companies, but alleged that her shareholding was subsequently transferred into a trust without her knowledge or consent, a move she has challenged in court. She had also sought directions restraining Priya Sachdev Kapur and other respondents from interfering in the functioning of the alleged RK Family Trust during the pendency of the mediation proceedings. Rani Kapur alleged that Priya Kapur is trying to take control of company finances before mediation by attempting to appoint two independent directors to RIPL which holds significant share of the family holdings. "They want to induct 2 more directors into the company. This company has substantial shares in Sona comstar," Rani Kapur told the court, expressing her concerns about being completely excluded from the company control structure. "They want to make sure that I am completely drowned out," Rani Kapur told the court, expressing her concerns about being completely excluded from the estate and trust structure.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the respondents, informed the Court that the Reserve Bank of India had conducted an inspection and directed that two independent directors be appointed by May 21. The Court responded that it would address the RBI directive and subsequently ordered that the directives of the RBI and statutory compliances need not be insisted upon by the RBI or statutory authorities, for the time being. The immediate controversy before the Court concerned a notice dated May 8 issued by RIPL convening a board meeting for May 18, which Rani Kapur argued was issued barely a day after the Supreme Court referred the family dispute to mediation before former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on May 7. Sibal argued that the proposed board meeting was convened primarily to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations and not with an intention to alter the status quo during the mediation process. Sibal defended the move, saying the induction of independent directors was being done to comply with an RBI directive issued after an inspection, stating "This company has been registered since 2014. The RBI conducted an inspection and directed appointment of two independent directors by May 21." The disputed agenda items included the appointment of two independent directors and changes in authorised signatories for certain bank accounts. Counsel for Priya Kapur and RIPL argued that the board meeting agenda was being misrepresented as a control attempt, maintaining that RIPL, as a non-banking financial company, is bound by regulatory requirements issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Sibal told the Bench that Rani Kapur's directorship was not being altered, with the Court noting that "the agenda items objected to will not be taken up at the May 18 meeting" for the present. The court said it would ask the RBI to grant more time in view of the ongoing mediation proceedings, with Justice Pardiwala telling counsels: "Let the matter proceed before mediator for two months. We will ask RBI not insist on statutory compliance."
RIPL holds a 27% stake in Aureus Investment, which in turn owns nearly 28% of Sona BLW Precision Forgings, making it a key promoter-linked NBFC in the Sona BLW dispute. The case before the Supreme Court is part of a larger dispute between the mother and widow of late Sunjay Kapur, who died during a polo match in England in June 2025. Following his death, both public and legal battles emerged over his personal wealth, which was estimated at around $1.2 billion (approximately ₹10,300 crore), according to Forbes. The Supreme Court has indicated that regulatory or statutory compliance should not override the mediation process at this early stage and urged both sides to explore an amicable resolution, highlighting the sensitive nature of the dispute. The bench remarked during the hearing that "no one is in control of anything at present" when it comes to RK Trust, or the Rani Kapur Family Trust, and associated companies to Sona Comstar as the matter is before mediation. The Supreme Court had on May 7 appointed former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud as mediator in the dispute, with the matter scheduled to be taken up again after the court's reopening. The court also suggested that separate proceedings regarding alleged forgery of Sunjay Kapur's will should also go for mediation, with Justice Pardiwala telling Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani: "If the mediation in RK Trust matter goes smoothly then they can also consider mediation for will." Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani informed the court that they were monitoring developments and would participate in mediation if required. The inheritance dispute intensified after Sunjay Kapur died in London in June 2025 following a cardiac arrest during a polo match, with multiple legal proceedings concerning trusts, shareholding structures and estate control reaching both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court indicated that mediation would proceed under former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and that the court would review developments after the initial mediation sittings. The matter will be taken up again after the court's reopening, when the bench will seek clarity on what has transpired before the mediator. The apex court had said that it would await a preliminary report from the mediator before taking up the matter further and posted the case for hearing in August. The court also told the parties to "wait for two months and let mediation proceed", while assuring that it would ask the Reserve Bank of India not to insist on immediate statutory compliance linked to the appointment of independent directors. The bench said the matter would be taken up immediately after the court vacation to assess the progress made before the mediator. The dispute stems from a suit filed by Rani Kapur, who has alleged that after suffering a stroke in 2017, her late son Sunjay Kapur and Priya Kapur took advantage of her physical condition and trust. On April 30, the Delhi High Court allowed an interim injunction application filed by the two children of actor Karisma Kapoor and restrained Priya Sachdev Kapur from creating third-party rights over assets left behind by Sunjay Kapur. Parallel proceedings concerning control of the estate and family assets are also pending before the Delhi High Court. The court also suggested that separate proceedings regarding alleged forgery of Sunjay Kapur's will should also go for mediation, with Justice Pardiwala telling Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani: "If the mediation in RK Trust matter goes smoothly then they can also consider mediation for will." Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani informed the court that they were monitoring developments and would participate in mediation if required. The inheritance dispute intensified after Sunjay Kapur died in London in June 2025 following a cardiac arrest during a polo match, with multiple legal proceedings concerning trusts, shareholding structures and estate control reaching both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.
