In an SLP filed before the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Calcutta High Court, Gaurishankar said the will and codicil were drafted by him on the basis of Priyamvada's instructions, sources close to Lodha told PTI.
The 83-year-old lawyer stated that Priyamvada had read the draft of the 1999 will in front of him and approved it before signing it, the sources said.
The Birlas and Lodha are embroiled in a legal battle, both civil and criminal, for control of assets of the M P Birla group.
The Birlas had alleged that Lodha, a chartered accountant, had made the will and had it signed by an unsuspecting Priyamvada, who was not in good health.
Rajinder Pansari, an associate of the Birlas, had filed a criminal case before a city court against Lodha, Gaurishankar, S N Prasad and S K Daga, accusing them of committing a fraud on Priyamvada in making the will in favour of Lodha.
The Calcutta High Court had rejected a revision application filed by Prasad, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the four, challenging which he has moved a petition before the Supreme Court.
Gaurishankar moved a separate petition before the apex court on Thursday, challenging the high court order, claiming that he was pained at being named an accused in the criminal case.
Gaurishankar claimed in his petition that Priyamvada had bequeathed the assets to Lodha to keep the M P Birla group independent and distinct from other Birla groups.
The sources claimed that Gaurishankar knew M P Birla since 1956 and that he was the personal advisor to Priyamvada and M P Birla.
Lodha has sought probate of the 1999 will of Priyamvada, vide which she purportedly bequeathed the assets of the M P Birla group to him.
The other Birlas collectively challenged the probate petition before the Calcutta High Court, claiming that M P Birla had wanted the assets to be used for charitable purposes after his and Priyamvada's death.
The Birlas also claimed that vide two mutual wills of the issueless couple, that were made in 1982, they had wished that the property would go to charity.
The criminal case was moved under sections 120b (criminal conspiracy) read with 406 (criminal breach of trust), 417 and 420 (cheating), 204 (destruction of documents to prevent its production as evidence) of IPC and sections 93(i)(c) (issue of search warrant) against Lodha and the three others.
Pansari had alleged that the huge property were willed in the name of Lodha by giving Priyamvada the false notion that it was being willed to public charity. He had claimed that Priyamvada was not in the know of Lodha's schemes, claiming that it was a clear case of forgery, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.
The Lodha camp had then filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings which was rejected by the court.
© 2026