Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator in Yuvraj Singh’s Dispute Over Personality Rights and Flat Sale

The Delhi High Court has appointed an arbitrator to handle two legal pleas filed by former Indian cricketer Yuvraj Singh, involving allegations of personality rights violations and a dispute concerning an agreement for the sale of a flat. This decision comes as Singh seeks a resolution for his grievances with Brilliant Etoile Private Limited, the builder involved in the case.

Legal Proceedings and Background

Yuvraj Singh approached the Delhi High Court requesting the appointment of an arbitrator to address his disputes with the real estate company. Justice C Hari Shankar reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and decided to refer the matters to arbitration at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The court dismissed counterarguments from the respondents’ legal team, affirming Singh’s right to seek arbitration.

On July 9, the Delhi High Court issued a notice regarding Singh’s request for a sole arbitrator. The cricketer’s legal actions stem from issues related to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020, which involved the promotion, endorsement, and marketing of the ‘Sky Mansion’ real estate project developed by Brilliant Etoile.

Allegations Against the Builder

According to Singh’s claims, the MoU promised him a benefit of Rs. 1,15,00,000 for purchasing an apartment. He 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.

Singh alleges that the builder failed to deliver the apartment on time, only offering possession on November 10, 2023. Upon inspection in December 2023, he found the apartment did not match the sample or the terms of the agreement. Singh raised concerns about delays, poor quality, and increased costs, leading to a legal notice issued on April 27, 2024, seeking damages and quality improvements.

Builder’s Response and Ongoing Dispute

The builder did not respond to Singh’s legal notice or a subsequent notice invoking arbitration dated May 26, 2024. Instead, they allegedly terminated the agreement and refused to refund the payments made. The respondents have denied all allegations and have refused to initiate arbitration, as detailed in their replies to the legal notices and arbitration requests.

Singh’s legal team, led by Advocate Rizwan, has emphasized the importance of appointing a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes stemming from the agreement dated February 5, 2021. Additionally, Singh claims that the builder continued to exploit his brand value even after the MoU expired on November 24, 2020.

Stay updated with all the cricketing action, follow Cricadium on WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram