The Delhi High Court has ruled that the inheritance dispute between Oberoi siblings over late PRS Oberoi’s estate cannot be settled through arbitration. The Court held that the Articles of Association do not amount to a valid arbitration agreement under law.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the long-running family dispute between Natasha Oberoi and her brother Vikramjit Singh Oberoi over the estate of their late father PRS Oberoi cannot be decided through arbitration.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the Articles of Association (AoA) of Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which Natasha Oberoi relied upon to invoke arbitration, do not amount to a valid arbitration agreement under law. As a result, the Court held that no interim relief could be granted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Because of this finding, the Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act by Natasha Oberoi, which sought interim reliefs in aid of arbitration.
The Court ruled,
“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,”
PRS Oberoi, widely known as “Biki” Oberoi, was the founder and guiding force behind the Oberoi Group, and was regarded as one of the most influential figures in India’s luxury hospitality sector.
His death in November 2023 triggered internal disputes within the Oberoi family over succession, estate management and control of companies linked to 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 handle legal matters related to the estate of late PRS Oberoi, including the initiation and defence of legal proceedings.
She also requested the Court to restrain Rajaraman Shankar, Vikramjit Singh Oberoi and Arjun Singh Oberoi from acting upon or giving effect to their consent to the said board resolution.
While examining the matter, the Court analysed Clause 30A of the Articles of Association. This clause stated that disputes should, at the first instance, be referred to the joint arbitration of the company’s auditors and lawyers.
On the issue of signing, the Court observed that the Articles of Association were not signed by the petitioner.
The judge said,
“The AoA, however, admittedly, is not signed by the petitioner, let alone the other parties,”
The Court also examined whether Natasha Oberoi could rely on the Articles of Association at all. It held that only the company and its members can be treated as parties to the Articles.
ALSO READ: Courts Must Support Arbitration, Not Act as a Barrier: Justice Manmohan
The judgment said,
“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 Court further noted that Natasha Oberoi was acting in the capacity of a managing director and not as a shareholder or member of the company. Therefore, she could not invoke the arbitration clause contained in the Articles of Association.
“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 importantly, the Court held that Clause 30A itself did not reflect any real intention to resolve disputes through arbitration under the Arbitration Act.
The Court reasoned that a mechanism which requires disputes to be referred to the company’s own auditors and lawyers, especially when the disputes involve the company itself, cannot be treated as a binding arbitration process under law.
In the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, the Court concluded that the petition seeking interim reliefs in aid of arbitration was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
During the proceedings, Natasha Oberoi was represented by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, along with advocates Amita Gupta Katragadda, Surabhi Khattar, Ambika Mathur, Niharika Chhabra and Shivansh Vishwakarma.
Rajaraman Shankar was represented by Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, assisted by advocates Ankur Sood, Dhaman Trivedi, Prajwal Suman and Romila Mandal.
Vikramjit Singh Oberoi was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along 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 Pvt. Ltd. was represented by Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Rajshekhar Rao, along with advocates Aman Gupta, Anup Kashyap and Divyam Kandhari.
Case Title:
Natasha Oberoi Vs Rajaraman Shankar
Read More Reports On Engineer Rashid
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
