Delhi High Court
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)/404/2025 of NAVNEET KUMAR SUREKA Vs VISHNU KUMAR SUREKA HUF & ORS. on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010732392025 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 404/2025, I.A. 26581/2025 NAVNEET KUMAR SUREKA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.Goel and Ms.Ishika Kanyal, Advocates. versus VISHNU KUMAR SUREKA HUF & ORS. .....Respondents
$~80
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010732392025
+
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 404/2025, I.A. 26581/2025
NAVNEET KUMAR SUREKA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Shivam
Goel,
Ms.
Ramya
S.Goel
and
Ms.Ishika Kanyal, Advocates.
versus
VISHNU KUMAR SUREKA HUF & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Varun Chugh and Mr. Yudhveer
Singh, Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Anirudh Bakru, Ms. Sanya
Sharma and Mr. Alekshendra Sharma,
Advocates for R-6 & 7.
Mr. Amrit Singh and Mr. N P Singh,
Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
16.09.2026
1. The instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the action of Respondents No.1 to 4 wherein they have been selling/dumping the publicly listed shares of Respondent No.5 Company held by Respondent No.1 HUF in violation of the family settlement.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the parties in the present petition comprise the Sureka family with Respondent No.2 being its patriarch. It is stated that Respondent No.1 is an HUF known as ‘Vishnu Kumar Sureka HUF’ wherein Respondent No.2 is the karta.
3. It is stated that Respondent No.5 Company was incorporated by the paternal grandfather of the Petitioner in the year 1980 and was registered and listed publicly with the Bombay Stock Exchange in the year 2015.
4. It is stated that the Petitioner being the coparcener has a vested and undivided interest in the joint family property and the assets of the HUF by virtue of his birth.
5. It is stated that differences arose between the parties and an oral family settlement was arrived at amongst the entire family including Respondent No.2 (himself and as karta) and Respondent No.3 regarding the division of the control and business interests of the HUF held entities.
6. An oral family settlement was recorded in MoU dated 04.05.2024 whereby the control and ownership of 34 family held companies was divided between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4, and therefore, Respondent No.5 Company came to the share of the Petitioner. However, it is stated that Respondent No.2 in collusion with Respondent No.4, i.e., younger brother of the Petitioner, started violating the family settlement and started selling the HUF held shares in Respondent No.5 leading to the depreciation in value of shares, and therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant Petition.
7. Notice in the present Petition was issued on 25.09.2025 and the Respondents stand served.
8. This Court vide Order dated 25.09.2025, granted interim relief in favour of the Petitioner directing Respondents No.1 to 3 not to sell, alienate, transfer and/or otherwise create any third party rights in respect of their shareholding in Respondent No.5 Company.
9. Since this Court in ARB.P. 2061/2025 has appointed Justice Sanjiv Khanna, former Chief Justice of India, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, let this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act be treated as one under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
10. It is expected the learned Sole Arbitrator will decide the application under Section 17 on the merits of the case, contentions raised by both sides and documents adduced by both sides without being influenced by this
Order.
11. Needless to state, all the other rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
12. With these observations, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 hsk