Delhi High Court issued a notice to a real estate firm on Tuesday regarding pleas by former India cricketer Yuvraj Singh, who sought the invocation of arbitration laws over alleged violations of his privacy rights in the promotion of construction projects and for the delayed delivery of a dwelling unit to him in the national capital. Justice C Hari Shankar requested a response from Brilliant Etoile Private Limited to Singh's two pleas for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between him and the builder. The high court scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 5. In one of the pleas filed through advocate Rizwan, the cricketer stated that a sale agreement had been executed between him and his mother on one side and the builder on the other for the purchase of an apartment worth over Rs 14 crore in the real estate project initiated by Brilliant Etoile Pvt Ltd in Hauz Khas under the name 'Sky Mansion' and displaying the name 'Risland'. In the other plea, Singh mentioned that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) had been executed between him and the builder for the purpose of promoting, endorsing, and marketing the real estate project. However, the builder allegedly breached the terms of the MoU and the agreement concerning the delivery of possession of the apartment, according to the pleas. The pleas claimed that upon receiving the possession letter and inspecting the apartment, the petitioners found it to be in complete disregard of the promised standards of quality, grade, specifications, and finishing. They alleged that the builder compromised on the quality of materials used and downgraded the quality of fittings, furnishings, lighting, and finishing of the apartment, failing to match the standard promised in the agreement. According to the MoU, Singh was to promote and endorse the project, with the MoU expiring on November 23, 2023. He is aggrieved by the alleged continued commercial use of the services he provided, including the use of his photographs on billboards, the project site, social media posts, and articles despite the expiry of the MoU. The former India all-rounder claimed that this continued use of his image and others was a complete violation of his copyright, personality rights, and right to publicity, which are protected as his intellectual property rights.