Oberoi family feud: Anastasia Oberoi moves Delhi HC to block COO from AGM quorum ahead of director reappointment

Anastasia Oberoi, the daughter of late hotelier PRS Oberoi by Mirjana Jojic Oberoi, on Tuesday moved a fresh plea before the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain Oberoi hotel group COO Rajaraman Shankar, who is one of the executors of the last will of PRS Oberoi, from participating and being counted towards quorum for her reappointment as a director in the Annual General Meeting of Oberoi Hotels and Oberoi Properties which is scheduled on September 26.

Justice Jyoti Singh with the consent of all the parties allowed the AGMs to go ahead on the issue of re appointment of directors on the oral undertaking that Anastasia will be reappointed.

With regard to another issue - whether Oberoi Hotels can declare dividend while the case is pending, the court issued notice to her brother Vikramjit Singh Oberoi, Natasha Oberoi and cousin Arjun Singh Oberoi and others and posted the matter for further hearing on November 18.


Seeking protection of the dividend declared on the shares, owned by Late PRS Oberoi in the two companies and now allegedly having bequeathed equally amongst her and her step sister Natasha, Anastasia sought equal distribution of any dividend payable towards the shares of her father, including Rs 3.43 crore to her and Natasha.

Besides, approval of dividend of Rs 325 per shares of Class A & B for the Financial Year 2024-25, the agenda for the AGMs includes reappointment of Vikramjit, Arjun, Natasha and others as directors.

Senior counsel Arun Kathpalia and counsel Swapnil Gupta and Aadil Singh Boparai, appearing for Anastasia argued that they have apprehensions that her siblings may act contrary to the “clear and unambiguous” terms of the HC’s September last year’s directions.

Shankar’s presence at the AGMs of Oberoi Hotels and Oberoi Properties, which are the holding companies of EIH Ltd, for completing quorum was limited to ensuring statutory compliances and filing of statutory reports only, they said.

Regarding the Class A share, the court in its last year’s order had allowed Shankar to exercise his voting right only for purposes of ensuring statutory compliances and filing of statutory reports. However, the HC order had clarified that for other agenda items, Shankar will not be deemed to be present in such general meetings while exercising his rights as a holder of the Class A share, which was owned by late PRS Oberoi in the two companies.

While senior counsel Rajiv Nayyar represented the companies, counsel Aakash Bajaj and Amita Katraggada appeared for Vikramjit/Arjun and Natasha, respectively.

Anastasia said that Shankar cannot be “used for an ulterior purpose to defeat the re-appointment of directors” and she had also objected to this during the board meeting held on August 26.

The re-appointment of Anastasia as director cannot be at the “mercy” of Shankar and her siblings, the application stated, adding that Shankar cannot be “using that one share at his whims and fancies to enable the AGM to take up any and all agendas.”

She also alleged that Shankar, Natasha, Vikramjit and Arjun “acting in conspiracy with each other are intending to dilute the protection given by the court while permitting the transmission of one Class ‘A’ share which allowed such share to be utilized only for purposes of statutory compliance and statutory reports.”