A party may elect to pursue arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution even if a remedy exists under the RERA Act, provided there is a valid arbitration agreement. The issues of arbitrability and jurisdiction can be decided by the appointed Arbitral Tribunal.

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES, ARISING FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES, ARISING OUT OF THE CLAUSE 6.10 OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 20.12.2015 (ANNEXURE A) AND CLAUSE 13.08 OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 20.12.2015 (ANNEXURE B).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. M.B. Anirudh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sridhar G., learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Agreement of Sale dated 20.12.2015 (Annexure-A), in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. It is contended by Sri. M. B. Anirudh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by inviting the attention of the Court to Clause 6.10 of the Agreement of Sale (Annexure-A) as well as the notice dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure-C), that the petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of the notice dated 15.09.2025 that he intended to avail the remedy before CREDAI, Bengaluru. However, there was no response from the respondents. Therefore, the appointment of an Arbitrator has become necessary for the resolution of the dispute.

4. In this regard, Sri. Sirdhar G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner is under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. While inviting the attention of this Court to Section 11(5) of the said Act, it is submitted that it is open for the petitioner to approach the said authority.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt., Ltd., vs. Rahul Rajendrakumar Pagariya and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3871, and also on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of Arif Azim Company Ltd v. Aptech Ltd reported in (2024) 5 SCC 313. It is submitted that the objections relating to the competence of the Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising under the Agreement of Sale fall within the domain of the authorities under the RERA Act, and therefore, any order that may be passed by the Arbitrator in the event of appointment would be binding only between the parties to the arbitration and may result in inconsistency with the claims of other allottees of respondent No.1.

6. In reply, Sri. M. B. Anirudh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with reference to the competence between various statutory provisions, particularly the Consumer Protection Act, the RERA Act, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, submitted that the parties have chosen arbitration as the mode for resolution of disputes. Apart from that, it is open to the parties to elect the particular forum for approaching the competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the appointment of an Arbitrator is called for in the present petition.

7. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that Clause 6.10 of the Agreement of Sale dated 20.12.2015 provides for resolu