Apex court stays proceedings between MS Dhoni and Amrapali over commercial dispute

A Supreme Court bench comprising of justices U U Lalit and Bela M Trivedi on July 25 (Monday) stayed the arbitral proceedings initiated by former Indian skipper, MS Dhoni, against the Amrapali group of companies for which he was the brand ambassador.

Forensic auditors appointed by the apex court had told the bench that the real estate firm had signed ‘sham agreements’ with Rhiti Sports Management Pvt Ltd (RSMPL) which represents Dhoni to ‘illegally divert’ the home buyers’ money and made payments to RSMPL amounting a huge sum of INR 42.22 crore between a period of 2009 and 2015.

Dhoni had moved to the apex court seeking protection of his ownership rights in 2019

Issuing a notice to the former World Cup winner, the Supreme court asked Justice Birbal to not proceed with the arbitration. Earlier in 2019, MS Dhoni had moved to the top court seeking protection of his ownership rights for a penthouse the right-handed batter had booked 10 years ago in a project of Amrapali Group.

At present, the Supreme court has been keeping an eye on the several housing projects of the Amrapali group which are now being completed by another real-estate firm. Former group directors of Amrapali — Anil Kumar Sharma, Shiv Priya, and Ajay Kumar — are in prison on the top court’s order.

Earlier in 2016, Dhoni had moved to the Delhi High Court due to some financial dispute with Amrapali group (now a defunct real estate firm). The High Court had then appointed its former judge Veena Birbal to arbitrate the commercial dispute between Dhoni and the real estate firm.

The bench was informed about the pending arbitration proceedings between Dhoni and the Amrapali group of companies and the issues posed in pursuing it. The Apex court also stated that it had taken cognizance of the issue and had directed a court receiver to ensure that the housing projects are completed within the stipulated timeline and the allotments are made soon.

“In view of these, it would be extremely difficult for the receiver to defend and take care of such litigations…It cannot be expected that the erstwhile management or anybody else can represent the Amrapali group of companies before the learned sole arbitrator,” the bench said.