Conditional court order paves way for Anastasia Oberoi’s return to Oberoi Hotel

Anastasia Oberoi, daughter of late PRS Oberoi, has received assurances from her siblings Vikramjit Singh Oberoi and Natasha Oberoi and her cousin Arjun Singh Oberoi that she will be re-appointed to Oberoi Hotels and Oberoi Properties at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of directors is scheduled for Tuesday, November 5.

The assurance came in the form of a consent order by the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, which allowed her reappointment on the condition that Rajaraman Shankar, chief operating officer of Oberoi Hotels Group, participates in the directors’ vote at the annual general meeting – But only for that meeting.

a battle of wills

Earlier, Anastasia filed a fresh petition seeking to prevent her siblings and cousin from being reappointed as directors of Oberoi Hotels Private Limited and Oberoi Properties Private Limited, That was until a family dispute over her father’s will was resolved.

The legal battle centers on control of the Oberoi family’s assets, including shares in EIH Ltd. Anastasia claims her relatives have blocked her rights under her father’s 2021 will, which they dispute in favor of an older version from 1992.

In a separate order in September, the High Court temporarily halted all transfers of shares and held that the 2021 Will was credible, bypassing the need for probate at this stage.

Also read: Amid family feud and chaos, EIH-owned Oberoi Hotels to develop two hotels in London, Pune

Anastasia’s latest petition claims that Shankar, the group’s chief operating officer, violated a previous court order by attending the upcoming annual general meeting regardless of attendance conditions. She asked the high court to take action against Shankar for “disobeying” the order, claiming that he ignored the court’s directions and insisted on attending and voting at the AGM. She opined that the “Class A” shares given to Shankar were for a limited purpose and should not affect the decision regarding the appointment of directors.

Anastasia also pointed out that under the Companies Act, directors who retire on rotation are usually reappointed automatically, making it unnecessary for Shankar to be present to comply. She noted that during her late father’s lifetime, all resolutions involving the family company required his approval of Class A shares. She argued that recent changes to board appointments and retirements violated established practice and ignored court orders.

Also Read | Mint Narrator: What triggered family feud in corporate India?

Her plea states: “Anastasia had good reason to be entitled to the Class A shares bequeathed to her, giving her the right to participate in the family company. However, due to the unlawful conduct of the defendants, including Vikramjit and Arjun’s false Claim, the transfer in favor of the plaintiffs (Anastasia and her mother Mirjana Chojik) is still pending and the plaintiffs are forced to file this action to protect their rights and interests related to the bequest of PRS Oberoi. “

Anastasia claimed Shankar and her siblings conspired to influence the outcome of the annual general meeting. Her request also expressed concerns that the involvement of Shankar and his siblings could unfairly affect her participation in the upcoming annual general meeting.

Meanwhile, EIH Ltd’s annual general meeting will be held on November 12.

September orders

In September, the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Anastasia, restraining Oberoi Hotels Private Limited (OHPL) and Oberoi Properties Private Limited (OPPL) from transferring any shares. The order was in response to her lawsuit seeking to enforce her father’s will, in which she claimed her relatives were preventing its execution. The court noted that for other agenda items, Shankar would not be deemed to be present at the general meeting while being a Class A shareholder.

The relatives argued that the will did not reflect the original intentions of PRS Oberoi’s father, MS Oberoi, but instead pointed to a will dated March 20, 1992, requesting shares in the holding company. Anastasia claims her siblings plan to sell their shares, thereby threatening her rights.

Also read: Hotels lure the ultra-rich by monetizing India’s rarest commodity – privacy

She argued that the executor did not transfer the shares of OHPL and OPPL held by PRS Oberoi as per PRS Oberoi’s wishes, but intended to sell them to Vikramjit and Arjun at a price determined by itself, thereby violating her and the two trusts to which she belonged. rights. sole beneficiary.

In response, Vikramjit and Arjun claimed that PRS Oberoi’s will required that the shares could be transferred only to blood relatives and not to a trust. They cited a 1992 will and an alleged oral family agreement to justify their claim to the shares. They also claimed that the execution of the will required formal court probate or probate and that Anastasia should have first offered them the opportunity to purchase the shares before any transfer.

However, the court’s September order deemed the October 2021 will credible and ruled that probate was not required at this stage.