Family dispute over PRS Oberoi’s estate (Image source: iStockphoto)
The daughter of late veteran hotelier PRS Oberoi Anastasia Oberoi has filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against his brother Vikramjit Oberoi, his sister Natasha Oberoi and his cousin Arjun Oberoi.
In her complaint, she alleged that Vikramjit and Arjun, in conspiracy with the executors appointed by her late father, were attempting to obstruct the execution of her will.
On September 12, 2024, the court of Justice Navin Chawla of Delhi High CourtAfter a detailed hearing, he issued an interim order in favour of Anastasia Oberoi along with the other plaintiffs to protect the subject matter of the suit.
The court ordered an injunction in relation to the shares held by PRS Oberoi and protected the continued possession of the family home by Anastasia and her mother.
While passing the interim order, Justice Chawla said that there is sufficient material on record by the petitioners to show the prima facie reliability of the Will and Testator’s Codicil proposed by the petitioners.
them.
Justice Chawla also stated that “I find that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a good prima facie case in their favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The plaintiffs are likely to suffer serious and irreparable harm in the event that the subject matter of the suit, i.e. the shares and properties, are alienated during the pendency of the suit and before the defendants file their reply and this Court considers it.”
This order comes amid a legal dispute between Anastasia and her brother Vikramjit Oberoi, sister Natasha Oberoi and cousin Arjun Oberoi, regarding PRS Oberoi’s estate and his will.
The case revolves around control of the family’s significant stakes in EIH Limited, which runs the Oberoi and Trident hotel chains.
The Delhi High Court, in its order, also stated that the interests of justice and the petitioners can be safeguarded by
to restrain defendants Rajaraman Shankar, Daniel Lee Farrugia, Natasha Devi Oberoi and defendants EIH Limited, Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Oberoi Properties Pvt. Ltd. from transferring or conveying shares held by late PRS Oberoi in the defendant companies.
An exception was made for the transfer of a Class A share in the defendants Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Oberoi Properties Pvt. Ltd. to the defendant Rajaraman Shankar (Chief Operating Officer of Oberoi Hotel Groups). However, the court clarified that while Rajaraman Shankar can exercise his voting rights only for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the law,
compliance and regulatory reporting, is restricted from exercising those rights on any other agenda item.
Through the suit, the plaintiffs sought directions to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to own, hold, enjoy and exercise all rights in 1,600 Class A shares and 62,075 Class B shares of Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and 100 Class A shares and 2,600 Class B shares of Oberoi.
Properties Pvt. Ltd. and 46 per cent equity contribution in Aravali Polymers LLP by virtue of the will dated 25th October, 2021 read with codicil dated 27th August, 2022 of Late PRS Oberoi.
The suit also sought grant of decree of permanent injunction against Rajaraman Shankar, Daniel Lee Farrugia, Natasha Devi Oberoi and Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Oberoi Properties Pvt. Ltd., from registering any transfer or transmission of shares held by Late PRS Oberoi in Defends Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Oberoi Properties Pvt. Ltd. except in favour of the legatees under the last will dated 25th October, 2021 read with Codicil dated 27th August, 2022 of Late PRS Oberoi.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Vikramjit Singh Oberoi and Arjun Singh Oberoi, contended that apart from the suit being inadmissible, in terms of the agreement arrived at between the testator and his father, Rai Bahadur MS Oberoi, the shares of Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Oberoi Properties Pvt. Ltd were held by the testator on trust for the respondents Vikramjit and Arjun and were to be transferred to the said respondents after the death of the testator.
Furthermore, to give effect to said oral understanding, the testator also executed a will dated March 20, 1992 in the terms thereof.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.