No Bar On Invoking Arbitration Despite Alternative Remedy Under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court, under Justice Michael Zothankhuma, ruled that arbitration can resolve real estate disputes alongside remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA Act). The court found no inherent conflict between the two, stating the existence of an arbitration agreement permits invoking arbitration despite the RERA Act's specific mechanisms. It referenced the Supreme Court's doctrine of election from Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, allowing arbitration if not inconsistent with statutory provisions. The dispute involved Pallab Ghosh and Kakali Roy seeking interest for delayed possession under RERA and an arbitration agreement in their sale agreement with Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Despite arguments against arbitration’s viability under RERA, the High Court upheld the parties' agreement to arbitrate. It distinguished non-arbitrable disputes and appointed Justice (Retired) H.N. Sarma as Arbitrator, endorsing arbitration’s use to settle the current dispute effectively.