![[Personality Rights Violation] Delhi HC Appoints Arbitrator for Yuvraj Singh's Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-8-1.png?fit=300%2C168&ssl=1)
Today, On 5th August, The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator to address Yuvraj Singh’s plea regarding the infringement of his personality rights. The case revolves around allegations that Singh’s rights were violated, prompting him to seek legal intervention.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, On Monday, appointed an arbitrator to handle two petitions filed by cricketer Yuvraj Singh.
The petitions allege a violation of his personality rights and a dispute related to the sale agreement of a flat.
Yuvraj Singh approached the High Court against Brilliant Etoile Private Limited, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve these disputes.
Read Also: Delhi HC Issues Notice on Yuvraj Singh’s Arbitration Plea Against Builder
Justice C Hari Shankar, after reviewing the arguments from both parties’ counsels, referred the cases to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The court dismissed the counterarguments from the respondents’ counsel.
On July 9, the Delhi HC issued a notice regarding Singh’s plea for the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Yuvraj Singh‘s legal representative, Advocate Rizwan, argued for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020.
This MoU for the promotion, endorsement, and marketing of a real estate project named ‘Sky Mansion’ in Village Chandanhulla, Tehsil Haus Khas, New Delhi, by the respondent. The MoU included a benefit of Rs. 1,15,00,000 against the purchase of an apartment.
In December 2020, Yuvraj Singh booked and was allotted apartment No. 0012 on the 23rd floor of Tower A in Sky Mansion, based on a sample apartment shown to him. An agreement to sell, dated February 5, 2021, executed for the purchase of the apartment at a sale consideration of Rs. 14,10,07,671.
The plea alleged that the respondents delayed offering possession and issued a possession letter to the petitioner via email on November 10, 2023. In December 2023, upon inspecting the apartment offered for possession, the petitioners found it to be significantly different from the sample apartment shown and the terms outlined in the February 5, 2021 sale agreement.
The petitioners communicated their concerns about the delay in possession, poor quality, surroundings, and escalated price of the apartment to the respondents. On April 27, 2024, the petitioners sent a legal notice requesting damages or concessions for the delayed and misrepresented apartment, as well as improvements in its quality.
Invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement, the petitioners sent a notice for arbitration on May 26, 2024. However, the builders, instead of addressing the issues, issued a termination letter.
The petitioners then sought a refund of the amount paid, along with 18% interest, via a legal notice. Respondent No. 1 replied to the April 27, 2024, legal notice, denying all allegations, and also refused to initiate arbitration proceedings in response to the May 26, 2024, notice.
On June 3, 2024, Respondent No. 1 further denied the claims made in the legal notice for a refund. Similarly, Respondent No. 2 also refused to initiate arbitration proceedings in their response. Yuvraj Singh requested the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the February 5, 2021 sale agreement.
Additionally, it is alleged that the respondent builder continued to use the petitioner’s brand value commercially even after the expiration of the MoU on November 24, 2020.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
