CONFLICT OF LAWS: CAN ARBITRATION OVERRULE RERA?
This is an important issue especially when the same tribunal namely MahaRERA has passed two controversial Orders on this issue. Let us see what is the provision of the Arbitration Act and what is an Arbitration proceeding. Arbitration Act : Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.— (1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to the arbitration. (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made. Jurisdiction of RERA Now let us see provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.( RERA) Application of other laws not barred.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have an effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Judicial pronouncements: Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd. & Ors on 15 April 2011 Arbitral tribunals are private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non-contractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings is reserved by the Legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and Tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is arbitrable, the court where a suit is pending will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under section 8 of the Act, even if the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes. The well-recognized examples of non-arbitrable disputes are (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offenses; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes. It may be noticed that the […]
Read more
DOES THE INVESTOR HAVE A REMEDY AGAINST ERRING BUILDERS UNDER REAL ESTATE AND REGULATION ACT ,2016 ( RERA) ?
To answer this query let us understand the provisions of RERA,2016 2(d) “allottee” in relation to a real estate project means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as ,he case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent. FILING OF COMPLAINTS WITH THE AUTHORITY OR THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. (2) The form, manner, and fees for filing a complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be specified by regulations. The first of such complaint was filed before Maharashtra RERA authority in COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000000789 Mahesh Parian vs Monarch Solitaire Facts: The Complainant has invested some amount in the residential Project known as ‘monarch Solitaire’ and reserved four apartments in the said Project in 2014. The said project is registered under MahaRERA registration No. P51700012008. The Complainant stated that after reservation of four apartments, Respondent neither gave his invested money back with interest nor is giving the possession of the apartments earmarked for him. Therefore, he prayed that MahaRERA pass an appropriate order for recovery of the principal amount with interest. Observation: documents entered into between parties Tribunal observed that the Complainant and Respondent have signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ on 12s March 2014 from which it is seen that the Complainant is an investor in the said Project and not an allottee. The ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ mentions that when the complainant sells his apartments in the market then the profit from such a sale will be shared between the complainant and respondent in the ratio of 70:3O”. It means that the Complainant has the status of a ‘Co-promoter’ of the Project, as clarified in MahaRERA circular. NOTE: As per records of Maha-RERA this matter was subsequently withdrawn before Appellate Authority. Can draw a hypothesis that it was settled. Next came was M/s. Srushti Sangam Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Sarvapriya Leasing (P) Ltd. APPEAL NO. 000600000001 0557 Facts: The Promoter was developing a project namely Maulick Enclave at Chembur, Mumbai. lt is a redevelopment project consisting of residential premises and shops and offices. promoter and owner of the land had executed registered agreements of redevelopment in the year 2003. As the project was incomplete on 11 May 2017 i.e. on the day of application of RERA Act 2016. promoter has registered a project with [MahaRERA and it bears registration No. P518000J2986.] The investor cum allottee had paid a total sum of Rs.4,53,71,1001 […]
Read more