Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
NATASHA OBEROI – Appellant
Versus
RAJARAMAN SHANKAR – Respondent
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Ms. Amita Gupta Katragadda, Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Ms. Ambika Mathur, Ms. Niharika Chhabra, Mr. Shivansh Vishwakarma
For the Respondents: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Mr. Ankur Sood, Mr. Dhaman Trivedi, Mr. Prajwal Suman, Ms. Romila Mandal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Mr. Shivank Diddi, Ms. Prerona Banerjee, Ms. Sania Abbasi, Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Aman Gupta, Mr. Anup Kashyap, Mr. Divyam Kandhari, Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Ms. Shivambika Sinha, Ms. Nimita Kaul, Ms. Sajal Jain, Mr. Vaibhav Mendiratta

A valid arbitration agreement requires mutual consent and signatures from all parties involved; absence of this negates the ability to claim arbitration.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 7 - Condition for an arbitration agreement - The court found no valid arbitration agreement as the relevant document was not signed by the petitioner and the petitioner was not a party to the agreement. The purported arbitration clause did not express a clear intent to arbitrate. (Paras 6, 41, 69)

(B) Judicial interpretation - The requirement of a valid arbitration agreement necessitates that both parties must consent to arbitration in a binding manner. (Paras 24, 43, 68)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a managing director of a hotel company, challenged a corporate resolution asserting an arbitration claim under the Articles of Association, which she argued should resolve disputes. However, the Articles of Association were not signed by her, and she was deemed not a party under the relevant legislation.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement, as required by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, thus dismissing the petition as not maintainable.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could claim under the arbitration clause in the Articles of Association, her status as a party to that agreement, and whether the document fulfilled statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of signature on the arbitration agreement and the non-party status under the Companies Act precluded any claim for arbitration. The purported clause did not indicate a clear intent to arbitrate.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

INDEX I. FACTUAL MATRIX ......................................................................................... 3 II. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES ......................... 6 III. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 8 A. THE CONDITION OF SIGNING THE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ......................................................................... 9 B. THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ................................................................................................... 15 C. THE INTENT TO ARBITRATE .................................................................. 23 IV. ORDER ........................................................................................................... 36 The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ―Arbitration Act‖/―the Act‖ seeking an interim stay on the operation of a resolution dated 06.06.2025, passed by the board of directors of respondent no. 5, whereby, one Mr. Tejaswi Dixit has been granted the authority, inter alia, to deal with legal matters/cases relating to the estate of late Mr. P.R.S. Oberoi, including to initiate and defend legal proceedings in relation thereto (hereinafter ―said Resolution‖). Certain consequential reliefs, including the stay of respondent nos. 1-3’s consent on the said Resolution, and restraining them from giving effect to or acting upon such consent have also been sought.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The factual history of the case at hand is not particularly relevant to the controversy involved, however, it may be adverted to briefly. The petitioner and respondent no. 4 are the two daughters of late Mr. P.R.S. Oberoi (hereinafter ―Mr. Oberoi‖), who passed away on 14.11.2023. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Mr. Oberoi’s son and nephew respectively. The daughters are also the managing directors of respondent no. 5 i.e., Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter ―the Company‖), with the other members of the board of directors of the Company (hereinafter ―the Board‖) being respondent nos. 1-3.

3. The petitioner contends that on 25.10.2021, Mr. Oberoi executed his last and final will, which was amended vide a codicil dated 27.08.2022 (hereinafter collectively ―said Will‖), under which the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were the primary legatees. On 13.06.2024, the Board passed a resolution granting authority to respondent no. 1 to, inter alia, deal with any legal matters/cases on behalf of the Company, and do all acts incidental and necessary thereto. Thereafter, on 10.09.2024, respondent no. 4 filed a suit bearing CS (OS) No. 736/2024 before this Court seeking reliefs of declaratory, mandatory and permanent injunctions in respect of the estate of Mr. Oberoi (hereinafter ―Estate Suit‖). The defendants in the said suit, included among others, the petitioner, respondent nos. 1-3 and 5. Further, in the Estate Suit on 09.01.2025, a written statement signed by respondent no. 1, was filed on behalf of the Company, which purportedly supported the stand taken by respondent no. 2 and 3 in the said suit (hereinafter ―said WS‖).

4. Subsequently, respondent no. 4 and the petitioner raised concerns over the filing of the said WS, which according to them should have been neutral, but instead had supported the version put forth by their brother and cousin. Ultimately, the said Resolution came to be passed, with respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 assenting to the same, and the petitioner and respondent no. 4 objecting to it. Citing certain actions already taken by Mr. Tejaswi Dixit in exercise of powers conferred by the said Resolution, and apprehending further steps being taken, the present Section 9 petition came to be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard on 15.10.2025, 10.11.2025, 13.11.2025, 24.11.2025, 03.12.2025, 08.12.2025, and 16.12.2025. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPurushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JNATASHA OBEROI – AppellantVersusRAJARAMAN SHANKAR – RespondentO.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025

A valid arbitration agreement requires mutual consent and signatures from all parties involved; absence of this negates the ability to claim arbitration.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
NATASHA OBEROI – Appellant
Versus
RAJARAMAN SHANKAR – Respondent
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.A. 22577-78/2025