|
The Delhi High Court on Monday appointed an arbitrator in two pleas moved by cricketer Yuvraj Singh alleging a violation of personality rights and a dispute related to an agreement to sale of a flat to him.
Yuvraj Singh had moved to the High Court against Brilliant Etoile Private Limited seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties Justice C Hari Shankar after hearing the submissions by the counsels of the parties referred the matters for arbitration at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The bench rejected the counter submissions advanced by the counsel for respondents. The Delhi HC on July 9, issued notice in pleas moved by Yuvraj Singh seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. Yuvraj Singh moved the Delhi HC against a builder over violation of personality rights and delay in delivery of a flat. Advocate Rizwan argued for Yuvraj Singh 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 24.11.2020 executed between them for the purpose of 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 the purpose of promotion, endorsement and marketing of the said 'Sky Mansion' Project. MoU envisaged a benefit of Rs. 1,1 5,00,000 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 05.02.2021 was executed by and between thePetitioners and the builder for the purpose of 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 10.11.2023, 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 petitioners communicated and discussed with the respondents, the issues pertaining to 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/concession along with the improved quality of the apartment with respect to delay and misrepresentation of price/quality/surroundings of the apartment in violation of the 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 27.04.2024 or the notice invoking arbitration of 26.05.2024 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 27.04.2024 denying all the allegations made by the Petitioners. Respondent no. 1 sent a reply to the Notice invoking Arbitration dated 26.05.2024 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 clearly 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 05, 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 24.11.2020 (ANI)
|
