Delhi High Court issues notice in a plea moved by cricketer Yuvraj Singh

New Delhi [India], July 9 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a notice in a plea moved by cricketer Yuvraj Singh seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Yuvraj Singh has moved the Delhi High Court against a builder over violation of personality rights and delay in delivery of a flat.
Justice C Hari Shankar issued notice to builder M/s Brilliant Etoile Private Limited. The matter has been listed for August 5.
Yuvraj Singh has moved a petition through advocate Rizwan seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to hear and adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the respondent arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020, executed between them for promotion, endorsement, and marketing of a real estate project initiated by the Respondent to develop and construct residential buildings in the Extended Abadi Deh (Lal Dora), Village Chandanhulla, Tehsil, Haus Khas, New Delhi under the name ' Sky Mansion' and displaying the name 'Risland'.
MoU executed between the petitioner and the Respondent to engage the services of the Petitioner for promotion, endorsement, and marketing of the said ' Sky Mansion' Project. MoU envisaged a benefit of Rs 1,15,00,000 against the purchase of an apartment.
In December 2020, the petitioner based on the sample Apartment shown booked the Apartment and was allotted Apartment No. 0012, 23rd floor, tower A, Sky Mansion.
It is also stated that an agreement to sale dated February 5, 2021, was executed by and between the petitioners and the builder for the purchase of the apartment for a sale consideration price of Rs 14,10,07,671.
Respondents delayed the offer of possession and issued a Possession Letter to the Petitioner vide email dated November 10, 2023, the plea alleged.
In December 2023, petitioners on inspection of the apartment offered for possession found it to be in clear contravention of the sample apartment shown and the terms of the agreement to Sale of February 5, 2021. It is stated that the petitioners communicated and discussed with the Respondents, the issues about delay in possession, poor quality and surroundings, and escalated price of the apartment.
On April 27, 2024, Petitioners also sent a legal notice for damages, and concession along with the improved quality of the apartment concerning delay and misrepresentation of price, quality, and surroundings of the Apartment in violation of an agreement to sale dated February 5, 2021.
The petitioners invoked the Arbitration Clause vide Notice invoking Arbitration in terms of Clause 38 of the Agreement to Sale.
It is also stated that the builders without responding to the Legal Notice of April 27, 2024, or the Notice invoking Arbitration of May 26, 2024, malafidely issued a termination letter to the Petitioners.
Petitioners on wrongful termination of the agreement sought a refund of the amount paid along with 18 per cent interest vide Legal Notice for Refund, the plea stated.
Respondent No. 1 sent a reply to the Legal Notice of April 27, 2024, denying all the allegations made by the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 sent a reply to the Notice invoking Arbitration dated May 2, 2024, unequivocally refusing to initiate arbitration proceedings. Respondent No. 1 sent a reply to Legal Notice for Refund dated 03.06.2024 denying the claims of the Petitioners.
Respondent No. 2 sent a common reply to the Legal Notice for refund dated 03.06.2024 and the Notice invoking Arbitration dated 26.05.2024 refusing to initiate Arbitration proceedings.
Yuvraj Singh has prayed for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to hear and adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioners and the Respondents arising out of the Agreement to Sale dated February 5, 2021, executed by and between the Petitioners and the Respondents.
It is also alleged that the Respondent builder continued the commercial usage of the brand value of the Petitioner despite the expiry of the MoU of November 24, 2020.