RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, JAIPUR (1)Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2021-4495 Animesh Goswami .... Complainant VERSUS Vinkas Estates Private Limited ....Respondent (2)Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2021-4547 Mukesh Kumar Sharma .... Complainant VERSUS 2 Vinkas Estates Private Limited .... Respondent Present Hon’ble Shri Salvinder Singh Sohata, Member 1. Mr. Mitesh Rathore & Ms. Shruti Rai, Advocates present on behalf of complainant at S.No.1 2. Mr. Shailendra Singh & Devvrat Singh Raghav, Advocates on behalf of Complainant S.No. 2 3. Mr. Prerit Goyal, Advocate present on behalf of respondent in both the cases Date of Order: 10.02.2023 ORDER These complaints are having similar facts and involving identical question of law, therefore, are being disposed of by a Page 1 of 9 . Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2021-4495 & Anrcommon order. The copy of the order be annexed with respective files. The factual matrix of the cases are that complainants filed their respective complaints against the project “Uma Aangan” bearing registration No. RAJ/P/2017/233 being developed by the promoter. The particulars of the complaints are mentioned in the table below: S.No ] Comp. No. | Unit Considerati | Paid Date of | Expected AB No. __| on amount agreement delivery date 2021- 501 28,94,300 | 25,12,897 | 16.10.2015 | 42 months 4495 i.e. Animesh 15.04.2019 Goswami IL | art 2021- 206 14,13,120 | 12,82,385 | 10.07.2015 | 42 months 4547 ie. Mukesh 09.01.2019 Kumar Sharma It is alleged by the complainants that despite deposit of their installments, the delivery of the unit is not handed over in the light of agreement for sale. The promoter has not completed the project as specified in the aforesaid agreement. Therefore, the complainants have claimed refund with interest along with compensation and in respective files reply is filed by the promoter and it is agreed that the delivery of the unit was to be made within 42 months since date of agreement but it was subject to some Page 2 of 9 Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2021-4495 & Anrother conditions i.e. force majeure and categorically mentioned that building material i.e. Bajri, Steel, Cement, etc. was not available that their project was delayed. The Authority has extended validity of registration upto 30.06.2022. Therefore, it is prayed by the respondent-promoter to dismiss the complaint and that the allotment be cancelled due to non-payment of the installments. Both the parties were heard at length and the record was perused. In the cases, the arguments were heard on 20.01.2023. a) earned Advocate on behalf of respondent raised an objection in . Ihe light of clause 45 of the agreement for sale that the arbitration process under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was made applicable in case of any dispute between the parties. In this regard, an application is also moved and learned Advocate on behalf respondent to substantiate his arguments and _ invited attention of the Authority towards the order dated 19.04.2022 in case No. Arb.P.868/2021 Priyanka Taksh Sood and Ors V/s Sun World Residency Pvt. Ltd and Anr passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Under the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the agreement for arbitration is not made effective between the parties mutually either of parties may not resort for the Page 3 of 9 Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2021-4495 & Anrproceedings accordingly. It is categorically mentioned here that clause No.45 is available in the agreements executed between the parties. The aforesaid clause No.45 is having categorical mention therein that any dispute or differences that may arise in connection with agreement are attributable to refer for arbitration and accordingly, an averment in the reply at paragraph 4/N is also mentioned. In the light of the following grounds mentioned here after, we are not agreed with the contentions of the learned Advocate for the respondent:- ‘% 1. The RERA Act is a Special Law and promulgated on 0