The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a notice in response to a plea by cricketer Yuvraj Singh seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Singh has moved the court against builder M/s Brilliant Etoile Private Limited over alleged violation of personality rights and delay in the delivery of a flat.
Justice C Hari Shankar issued the notice to the builder, and the matter is listed for August 5. Singh’s petition, filed through advocate Rizwan, requests the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated November 24, 2020. The MoU was for the promotion, endorsement, and marketing of the builder’s real estate project, “Sky Mansion,” located in Village Chandanhulla, Tehsil Haus Khas, New Delhi.
According to the MoU, Singh was to receive Rs 1,15,00,000 against the purchase of an apartment. In December 2020, Singh booked and was allotted Apartment No. 0012 on the 23rd floor of Tower A in Sky Mansion. An agreement to sell the apartment for Rs 14,10,07,671 was executed on February 5, 2021.
However, the builder delayed the possession offer, eventually issuing a Possession Letter on November 10, 2023. When Singh inspected the apartment in December 2023, he found it did not match the sample apartment and violated the terms of the February 2021 agreement.
Singh communicated these issues to the builder, addressing delays, poor quality, surroundings, and the escalated price of the apartment. On April 27, 2024, Singh sent a legal notice demanding damages, concessions, and improvements in the apartment’s quality. Subsequently, Singh invoked the Arbitration Clause on May 26, 2024, under Clause 38 of the Agreement to Sale.
Without responding to the legal or arbitration notices, the builder issued a termination letter to Singh. In response, Singh sought a refund of the amount paid along with 18% interest through a legal notice. The builder denied all allegations and refused to initiate arbitration proceedings.
Singh has prayed for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising from the Agreement to Sale dated February 5, 2021. He also alleges that the builder continued to use his brand value for commercial purposes despite the expiry of the MoU on November 24, 2020.
