Delhi HC rejects Natasha Oberoi's arbitration plea in estate dispute

The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a plea by Natasha Oberoi seeking interim protection in a family dispute over the estate of late hotelier PRS Oberoi, holding that the matter cannot be referred to arbitration in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement.

 

Dismissing her petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the Articles of Association of Oberoi Hotels, relied upon by Natasha Oberoi to invoke arbitration, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of an arbitration agreement.

 

“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 judge held.

 

 

The dispute arose after the death of PRS Oberoi, popularly known as “Biki” Oberoi, in November 2023, which triggered differences within the Oberoi family on succession, estate administration and control over group entities.

 

Natasha Oberoi had approached the Delhi High Court challenging a board resolution dated June 6, 2025, by which the company authorised Tejaswi Dixit to handle legal matters connected with the late patriarch’s estate, including initiating and defending proceedings.

 

She also sought to restrain Vikramjit Singh Oberoi, Rajaraman Shankar and Arjun Singh Oberoi from acting on the resolution.

 

Examining Clause 30A of the Articles of Association, which contemplated referral of disputes “in the first instance” to the joint arbitration of the company’s auditors and lawyers, the court found multiple infirmities. It noted that the Articles were not signed by the petitioner and that, in any event, only the company and its members can be treated as parties to the Articles.

 

Since Natasha Oberoi was a managing director and not a member, she could not invoke the clause.

 

The court further held that Clause 30A itself did not evince an intention to submit disputes to arbitration under the 1996 Act. A mechanism requiring disputes to be referred to the company’s own auditors and lawyers, particularly where the company is itself a party to the dispute, could not amount to binding arbitration, the judge observed.

 

In the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, the court concluded that the petition seeking interim relief in aid of arbitration was not maintainable and dismissed it.