Delhi High Court - Orders
Natasha Oberoi vs Rajaraman Shankar & Ors on 15 October, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 373/2025 & I.As.22577-78/2025
NATASHA OBEROI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Anita Gupta, Ms. Surabhi
Khattar, Ms. Ankita Mathur, Mr.
Shivansh Vishvakarma and Ms.
Niharika, Advocates.
versus
RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ankur Sood and Mr. Rajat
Choudhary, Advocates for R1.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr.
Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocates with Mr.
Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr. Aakash Bajaj,
Mr. Shivank, Ms. P. Banerjee and Ms.
Sania Abbasi, Advocates for R2 and
R3.
Mr. Swapnil Gupta with Mr. Aadil
Singh Boparai, Ms. Shivambika
Sinha, Ms. Nimita Kaul, Mr.
Abhishek Dubey, Mr. Harshit Gupta
and Ms. Prakruti Jain, Advocates for
R4.
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Advocates
with Mr. Aman Gupta, Advocate for
R5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 15.10.2025 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:12:29
1. Heard Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has taken this Court through the written submissions and has explained as to why Clause 30A of the Articles of Association is mandatory and the suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Kripal, learned senior counsel who appears for respondent no.1, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel who appear for respondent nos.2 and 3, Mr. Swapnil Gupta, learned counsel who appears for respondent no.4, and Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, learned senior counsel who appear for respondent no.5, have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of this petition. They contend that the bar under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 would clearly disentitle the petitioner from invoking the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Additionally, it is contended that Clause 30A of the Articles of Association, which is being relied upon by the petitioner is a discretionary clause and does not mandate adjudication of the dispute by way of arbitration.
3. The Court, however, on preliminary hearing of the parties finds that the matter requires further consideration.
4. Reserving all objections to be raised by the respondents, let notice be issued to the respondents. Notice on behalf of the respondents is accepted by their respective learned counsel.
5. Let the respondents to take instructions and to file their comprehensive reply including the objection on maintainability of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:12:29 petition.
6. All rights and contentions qua the maintainability, as well as on merits of the case are left open to be adjudicated after fully hearing the parties.
7. List on 10.11.2025.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 15, 2025 tr/amg This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:12:29