Today(on 9th July),Delhi High Court has issued a notice in response to cricketer Yuvraj Singh’s plea for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes with builder M/s Brilliant Etoile Private Limited. The legal action involves alleged violations of personality rights and delays in delivering a promised flat, with further proceedings scheduled for August 5 under Justice C Hari Shankar.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 9th July), The Delhi High Court has issued a notice in response to a plea by renowned cricketer Yuvraj Singh, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute with a builder. The legal action arises from alleged violations of personality rights and delays in the delivery of a flat promised to Singh.
Yuvraj Singh has initiated legal proceedings against M/s Brilliant Etoile Private Limited. Justice C Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, issued the notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 5.
Singh’s petition, filed through advocate Rizwan, seeks the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes stemming from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020. This MoU was executed for the promotion, endorsement, and marketing of a real estate project named ‘Sky Mansion,’ which was developed by the Respondent in the Extended Abadi Deh (Lal Dora) area of Village Chandanhulla, Tehsil, Haus Khas, New Delhi. The project was marketed under the name ‘Risland.’
According to the MoU, Yuvraj Singh was engaged to promote, endorse, and market the Sky Mansion project. In return, he was promised benefits amounting to Rs 1,15,00,000 against the purchase of an apartment in the development. Following this agreement, in December 2020, Singh booked an apartment based on the sample shown to him and was allotted Apartment No. 0012 on the 23rd floor of Tower A in Sky Mansion.
On February 5, 2021, an agreement for sale was executed between Singh and the builder, setting the sale consideration price at Rs 14,10,07,671. However, the respondents delayed the offer of possession, eventually issuing a Possession Letter to Singh via email on November 10, 2023.
The plea alleges that when Singh inspected the apartment in December 2023, he found it to be –
“in clear violation of the sample apartment displayed and the terms of the Sale Agreement dated February 5, 2021.”
The inspection revealed several discrepancies, including issues related to the quality of construction and the surrounding environment, which did not match the initial promises.
Singh’s legal team communicated these concerns to the Respondents, highlighting the-
“Delayed possession, substandard quality and surroundings, and increased apartment prices.”
Despite these discussions, the issues remained unresolved, prompting Singh to seek judicial intervention.
The case has garnered significant attention due to Singh’s prominent status and the implications for consumer rights in real estate transactions. The upcoming hearing on August 5 is expected to shed more light on the dispute and potentially pave the way for an arbitrated resolution.
ALSO READ: Principles of Natural justice can be Ignored for the Interest of National Security: Delhi High Court
On April 27, 2024, the petitioners sent a legal notice to the builders seeking damages and concessions due to delayed delivery, price misrepresentation, and quality concerns related to their apartment purchase, referencing an agreement dated February 5, 2021. This legal action marked the beginning of a dispute rooted in dissatisfaction with the builders’ adherence to the agreed terms.
Invoking the Arbitration Clause as per Clause 38 of the Agreement to Sale, the petitioners aimed to resolve the conflict through arbitration. The notice of arbitration was formally issued, emphasizing their intent to seek a fair settlement.
Despite the formal notice, the builders failed to respond to the legal notice of April 27, 2024, and the arbitration notice of May 26, 2024. Instead, they issued a termination letter to the petitioners, which was perceived as a wrongful and mala fide act. The petitioners, in response to this termination, sought a refund of the amount paid along with an 18 percent interest through a Legal Notice for Refund.
In their plea, the petitioners outlined the builders’ actions. Respondent No. 1 replied to the Legal Notice of April 27, 2024, denying all allegations. Additionally, Respondent No. 1’s response to the Notice invoking Arbitration dated May 2, 2024, unequivocally refused to initiate arbitration proceedings. Further, Respondent No. 1 also denied the claims made in the Legal Notice for Refund dated June 3, 2024.
Similarly, Respondent No. 2 issued a common reply to both the Legal Notice for Refund dated June 3, 2024, and the Notice invoking Arbitration dated May 26, 2024, also refusing to initiate arbitration proceedings.
Amidst this legal tangle, Yuvraj Singh, representing the petitioners, has prayed for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. This arbitrator would be tasked with hearing and adjudicating the disputes arising from the Agreement to Sale dated February 5, 2021, between the petitioners and the respondents.
Adding another layer to the dispute, it is alleged that the respondent builder continued to commercially exploit the brand value of the petitioner despite the expiry of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020. This accusation points to a potential violation of the agreed terms and unauthorized usage of the petitioner’s brand value.
ALSO READ: “He Apologised for Being Playful”: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against Dalai Lama for Kissing Child
