Read Time: 05 minutes
In June, Yuvraj Singh, sent two notices invoking arbitration to the developer M/s Brilliant Etoile Private Limited. In the notice regarding his privacy violation, Singh asserted that the developer had misused his brand value and breached the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered between the parties on November 24, 2020.
The Delhi High Court, recently, appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between cricketer Yuvraj Singh and a developer concerning alleged violations of Singh's privacy rights during the promotion of a real estate project and the failure to meet the timeline for delivering an apartment in the project in the national capital.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while appointing Advocate Mukesh Gupta, former Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), as the arbitrator held, “The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC. The learned arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference”.
The court stipulated that the arbitration would proceed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and follow its rules and regulations. The court clarified that all questions of fact and law were left open to be adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings, noting that the court had not expressed any opinion on the issue in controversy, either preliminary or on the merits. The court, in its previous order, had issued notice to the builder while scheduling the hearing for August 5.
Advocate Rizwan, representing Singh, argued that per the MoU, Singh was to promote and endorse the project, however, it expired on November 23 of the previous year. Singh was aggrieved by the continued commercial use of his services, including his photographs on billboards, project sites, social media posts, and articles, despite the MoU's expiration.
This, according to Singh, constituted a complete violation of his Copyright, Personality Rights, and Right to Publicity, protected under the laws as his Intellectual Property Rights. The second notice concerned the possession of a flat in the project and stated that the developer had failed to adhere to the timeline and schedule for delivery, thereby breaching the Agreement to Sale.
Singh alleged that the developer compromised the quality of materials used in the apartment and downgraded the quality of fittings, furnishings, lighting, and finishing. Further, Singh alleged that the promises, escalated price charged more than the actual market price, and poor and unhygienic surroundings by the developer violated the terms of the Agreement to Sale.
Case Title: Yuvraj Singh Bundhel v M/S Brillient Etoile Private Limited
Please Login or Register
