Delhi High Court says dispute between Oberoi siblings over PRS Oberoi's estate not arbitrable

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the dispute between Oberoi Group's Natasha Oberoi and her her brother Vikramjit Singh Oberoi over the estate of their late father PRS Oberoi cannot be decided by arbitration [Natasha Oberoi Vs Rajaraman Shankar].

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the Articles of Association of Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd., relied upon by Natasha Oberoi to invoke arbitration, do not constitute a valid arbitration agreement in law and cannot form the basis for granting interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Hence, the Court dismissed a Section 9 petition filed by Natasha Oberoi seeking interim relief in aid of arbitration.

"Upon careful consideration, the Court has arrived at the conclusion that there does not exist an arbitration agreement, in terms of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act," the Court ruled.

PRS Oberoi, popularly known as “Biki” Oberoi, was the patriarch of the Oberoi Group and one of India’s most influential figures in the luxury hospitality industry. His death in November 2023 led to disputes within the Oberoi family concerning succession, estate matters and control over entities associated with the Oberoi Group.

Natasha Oberoi approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim reliefs against a board resolution dated June 6, 2025 passed by Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The resolution authorised Tejaswi Dixit to deal with legal matters relating to the estate of late PRS Oberoi, including initiating and defending legal proceedings.

Natasha also sought directions to restrain Rajaraman Shankar, Vikramjit Singh Oberoi and Arjun Singh Oberoi from acting upon or giving effect to their consent to the resolution.

The Court examined Clause 30A of the Articles of Association, which provided that disputes shall, in the first instance, be referred to the joint arbitration of the company’s auditors and lawyers.

On the signing requirement, the Court noted that the Articles of Association were not signed by the petitioner.

“The AoA, however, admittedly, is not signed by the petitioner, let alone the other parties,” the judge said.

On whether Natasha Oberoi could rely on the Articles at all, the Court held that only the company and its members are parties to the Articles of Association.

“A bare perusal of the afore-noted provision reveals that it is only the members and the Company itself who can be considered parties to the AoA,” the judgment said.

The Court concluded that Natasha Oberoi, being a managing director and not a member, could not invoke the arbitration clause.

“From the discussion above, it could safely be concluded that the petitioner is not a party to the purported arbitration agreement/agreement containing the arbitration clause viz. the AoA.”

Most significantly, the Court held that clause 30A itself did not disclose any intention to arbitrate under the Arbitration Act.

The Court reasoned that a mechanism which requires disputes to be referred to the company’s own auditors and lawyers, particularly when disputes involve the company itself, could not amount to binding arbitration.

In view of the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, the Court held that the petition seeking interim reliefs in aid of arbitration was not maintainable.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan with advocates Amita Gupta Katragadda, Surabhi Khattar, Ambika Mathur, Niharika Chhabra and Shivansh Vishwakarma.

Rajaraman Shankar was represented by Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal with Advocates Ankur Sood, Dhaman Trivedi, Prajwal Suman and Romila Mandal.

Vikramjit Singh Oberoi was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi with advocates Aseem Chaturvedi, Aakash Bajaj, Shivank Diddi, Prerona Banerjee, Sania Abbasi and Priyansh Sharma.

Arjun Singh Oberoi was represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal with advocates Aseem Chaturvedi, Aakash Bajaj, Shivank Diddi, Prerona Banerjee, Sania Abbasi and Priyansh Sharma.

Anastasia Mirjana Jojic Oberoi was represented by advocates Swapnil Gupta, Aadil Singh Boparai, Shivambika Sinha, Nimita Kaul, Harshit Gupta, Abhishek Dubey, Tarun Mishra, Prakruti Jain, Sajal Jain and Vaibhav Mendiratta.

Oberoi Hotels was represented by Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Rajshekhar Rao and advocates Aman Gupta, Anup Kashyap and Divyam Kandhari.

[Read Judgment]