DTVHINDIYuvraj Singh issued 2 legal notices to this company in the property case, said- my image was tarnished
Yuvraj Singh sent a legal notice to the company. Yuvraj Singh (Image Credit- Twitter X) Former world champion player of Team India, Yuvraj Singh has issued two legal notices to Delhi’s real estate firms. It has been claimed in these that these firms have violated privacy rights. Singh has also claimed that the assurance of delivery of projects in terms of possession by these firms was also not fulfilled in the stipulated time. Actually Yuvraj had booked a housing unit in Delhi’s Hauz Khas area in 2020. The law firm named Rizwan Law Associates representing Yuvraj Singh had given a notice with a claim for damages caused due to delay in the project. It has also been revealed that Singh was assured of a premium quality apartment, but the real estate failed to do so. This was the case with M/s Uppal Housing Pvt Ltd, which is one of the noticees mentioned in the legal notice. Another firm called M/s Brilliant Etoile Pvt Ltd has been served a second notice for violating privacy rights as well as blatant violation of intellectual property rights. Not only this, the firm also continued the infringement by using his personality in its social media campaigns along with news articles, which is also a gross violation of copyright, right of publicity and personality rights. The former Indian all-rounder said that the alleged continued use of his image and others is a complete violation of his copyright, personality rights and right of publicity vested under the laws and protected as his intellectual property rights. Let us tell you that Yuvraj Singh has recently been appointed as the brand ambassador of the T20 World Cup. He is busy these days in the promotional program of the World Cup.
No ball and Legal delivery..? Irfan Pathan gave a big reaction on Virat Kohli’s controversial no ball out.
Virat Kohli was out in a controversial manner after scoring 8 runs against Kolkata Knight Riders. Virat Kohli Irfan Pathan (Photo Source: X/Twitter) In the 36th match of IPL 2024, Royal Challengers Bangalore had to suffer a humiliating defeat by 1 run against Kolkata Knight Riders. This is RCB’s seventh defeat this season, the team is now almost out of the race for the playoffs. This match played between KKR vs RCB at Eden Gardens Stadium has become a topic of discussion due to the controversial no ball out of Virat Kohli. Virat Kohli (18) was caught by Harshit Rana on a full toss ball in the third over. It was a slow ball, which looked like it was falling towards the batsman, but when Virat made contact with the ball, the ball was above his waist height. Kohli believed that the ball had landed above his waist, and it should be called a no ball. Virat Kohli immediately took DRS, the third umpire resorted to Hawk Eye system. According to the umpire, Kohli had gone beyond the crease, hence he was declared out. Virat Kohli looked unhappy with this decision of the third umpire and was seen expressing anger. Fans and many cricket experts are also criticizing this decision on social media. However, former Indian veteran player Irfan Pathan believes that the umpire’s decision was absolutely correct, that ball was not a no ball. Irfan Pathan gave a big statement on the decision of the third umpire Cricket commentator Irfan Pathan has shared a video on Instagram, in which he has given his reaction on the whole matter and explained the rules, saying, ‘BCCI has measured the waist height of all the players this season. From there you get an accurate rule to measure where the ball will land, whether you are standing in front or behind. Virat Kohli was standing ahead, the ball was a full toss, if this ball had been faster then it would have gone above the waist. Irfan Pathan further said, ‘The ball was a slower one, and was going deeper, so where the impact happened, all the fans felt that the ball was going above their waist. But after the ball was going deep and if Virat Kohli had stood at the pop-in crease, his height would have been lower than what was measured, meaning it would have been a legal delivery. According to the rules and according to me, this was a legal delivery.
