Cricketer Yuvraj Singh approaches Delhi High Court against builder; here’s why

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a notice on a petition filed by cricketer Yuvraj Singh, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. Singh had approached the Delhi High Court seeking to resolve a dispute with a builder over violation of personality rights and delay in delivery of an apartment.

Justice C Hari Shankar has issued a notice to builder M/S Brilliant Etoile Private Limited. The case has been listed for hearing on August 5.

According to a report from the news agency ANNI-Singh, through advocate Rizwan, filed a petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of the MoU dated November 24, 2020.

Hauz Khas Property

This MoU was signed between Singh and the Respondent for the promotion, approval and marketing of a real estate project, ‘Sky Mansion’, in the extended Abadi Deh (Lal Dora) area of ​​Village Chandan Hulla, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi, under the brand name ‘Risland.’

The MoU stated that Singh would provide promotional, endorsement and marketing services for the ‘Sky Mansion’ project and that a benefit of Rs 1,150,000 would be granted on purchase of an apartment.

When did it start?

In December 2020, Yuvraj Singh booked Apartment No. 0012 on the 23rd floor of Tower A at Sky Mansion, based on a sample apartment shown.

On February 5, 2021, a sale agreement was signed for the apartment, priced at Rs 14,10,07,671. According to the application, the builder delayed offering possession and sent a possession letter to Yuvraj Singh via email on November 10, 2023.

In December 2023, after inspecting the offered apartment, Yuvraj Singh found that it significantly deviated from the sample and terms of the sale agreement. The petition stated that despite discussions with the builder regarding delays, poor quality, higher prices and misrepresented surroundings, no satisfactory resolution was reached.

On 27 April 2024, Yuvraj Singh sent a legal notice seeking damages, concessions and improved apartment quality for the delays and misrepresentations. He relied on Clause 38 of the sale agreement and initiated arbitration proceedings on 26 May 2024 with a notice of arbitration.

However, the builder allegedly terminated the agreement without responding to the legal notices or the arbitration notice. Yuvraj Singh then filed a fresh legal notice seeking refund of the amount paid along with 18% interest.

In response, the builder denied all allegations and refused to initiate arbitration proceedings. Yuvraj Singh sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of the sale agreement dated February 5, 2021. He also alleged that the builder continued to commercially exploit its brand equity even after the MoU expired on November 24, 2020.