On Monday, the Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator to handle two pleas filed by cricketer Yuvraj Singh. Singh’s legal actions involve allegations of personality rights violations and a dispute concerning an agreement for the sale of a flat.
Yuvraj Singh had approached the Delhi High Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve his disputes with Brilliant Etoile Private Limited. Justice C Hari Shankar, after reviewing the arguments presented by both parties’ counsels, referred the matters to arbitration at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The court rejected the counterarguments from the respondents’ legal team.
Earlier, on July 9, the Delhi High Court had issued a notice regarding Singh’s requests for a sole arbitrator. Singh’s case involves issues with a builder related to both a breach of personality rights and delays in the delivery of a flat.
Advocate Rizwan, representing Yuvraj Singh, argued for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020. This MoU was related to the promotion, endorsement, and marketing of the ‘Sky Mansion’ real estate project developed by the respondent.
According to the MoU, Yuvraj Singh was promised a benefit of Rs. 1,15,00,000 for purchasing an apartment. Singh booked an apartment based on a sample shown and was allocated Apartment No. 0012, 23rd Floor, Tower A, Sky Mansion, in December 2020. An agreement of sale was executed on February 5, 2021, for a total consideration of Rs. 14,10,07,671.
The plea alleges that the builder delayed possession of the apartment, which was only offered on November 10, 2023. Upon inspection in December 2023, Singh found the apartment did not match the sample or the terms of the agreement. Singh raised concerns about delays, poor quality, and increased costs.
On April 27, 2024, Singh issued a legal notice seeking damages and a quality improvement due to delays and misrepresentations. The builder did not respond to this notice or to a subsequent notice invoking arbitration dated May 26, 2024. Instead, the builder allegedly terminated the agreement and refused to refund the payments made.
Respondents denied all allegations and refused to initiate arbitration, as detailed in their replies to the legal notices and arbitration request. Singh has requested the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes stemming from the agreement dated February 5, 2021. Additionally, Singh alleges that the builder continued to exploit his brand value even after the MoU expired on November 24, 2020.
(INPUTS FROM ANI)
MUST READ: Uttarakhand: Over 100 Rescued From Kedarnath Valley Amid Challenging Weather Conditions
