Supreme Court of India urged mediation in Sona Group family dispute, cautioning against prolonged litigation. Bench of J. B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi stressed amicable resolution over continued adversarial proceedings.
In a significant development in the family dispute involving the Sona Group, the Supreme Court of India urged the parties to seriously consider mediation. The Court noted that continuing prolonged litigation in such matters is of little practical value, especially when an inheritance dispute involves an elderly litigant.
The case was heard by a Bench consisting of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. The Bench expressed concern about the persistence of what it described as a long-running battle within the family, noting that the parties had already been engaged in litigation for a considerable time and that further adversarial proceedings may not bring any constructive result.
Factual Background:
The dispute arises from a civil suit filed by Rani Kapur challenging the creation of the “Rani Kapur Family Trust,” which she claims was fraudulently set up to divest her of control over her assets, including her stake in Sona Group companies. She alleges that after suffering a stroke in 2017, she became vulnerable and was taken advantage of by her late son Sunjay Kapur and his wife Priya Kapur. According to her, she was made to sign documents, including blank papers, under the pretext of routine administrative work, which were later used to transfer her assets into the trust without her informed consent.
The dispute intensified after Sunjay Kapur’s death in June last year, when Rani Kapur alleged that Priya Kapur assumed control over key Sona Group entities and consolidated a significant portion of the family wealth in favour of herself and her children. She claims this effectively left her without control over her own estate. Parallel proceedings concerning the validity of the trust and control over the assets are currently pending before the Delhi High Court, while related issues have also reached the Supreme Court of India.
Observations of the Court:
At the beginning of the hearing, the Court questioned the need for a continued fight in court and remarked,
“Why are you all fighting? This is not the age for your client to fight…go for mediation once and for all, from A to Z. Otherwise, this is a waste.”
The Bench added,
“You are 80. This is not the age for your client to fight.”
It highlighted that litigation continuing into advanced age often fails to produce meaningful outcomes and, in many cases, only worsens family tensions.
The Court also noted that related proceedings regarding management and control of the estate are already pending before the Delhi High Court, while the current Supreme Court proceedings are primarily aimed at protective directions such as maintaining status quo over the alienation of trust properties.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued for Rani Kapur that in disputes involving large estates, courts usually grant interim protection at an early stage. He was supported by Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, who said that Rani Kapur had allegedly been “left without anything.”
Senior Advocate Naveen Pahwa, appearing for some of the grandchildren, also supported the plea and claimed they had been excluded from the assets. Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar also appeared for Rani Kapur.
Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court indicated that if the dispute continues through litigation, it may become lengthy and burdensome for everyone involved.
The Bench underlined the importance of reaching an amicable resolution and observed,
“It will be in the interest of all the parties concerned if they go for a mediation and try to resolve the disputes peacefully and equitably…We shall, if necessary, hear the matter on merits; however, first, we should make an attempt to convince the parties to go for mediation.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing next week. The Court clarified that it remains open to deciding the dispute on merits, but mediation should be genuinely attempted as the first step to address the complex family conflict.
Case Title: Rani Kapur v. Priya Sachdeva Kapur
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE