Priyanka Taksh Sood Vs Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)
Does the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 bar other remedies available?
Introduction:
The present matter, Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. v. Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & ANR, was adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi before Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Narula. The present case was filed invoking the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for reference of a dispute between the parties. Here the allottees opted to cancel the allotment letter and surrender the subject flat. However, Sunworld failed to refund the money, hence the allottees are seeking to resolve the dispute under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Background of the Matter:
Here the Respondent i.e., M/s. Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd., is a real estate developerand promoter of the group housing society “Sunworld Arista” in Sector 168, Noida, U.P. The Petitioners, Priyanka Taksh Sood and her late husband Taksh Krishna Dass were joint allottees of a flat on the 174th floor. Furthermore, the allottees were granted a loan by Respondent No. 2. – ICICI Bank. The parties entered into the following Agreements:
(i) ‘Flat Buyer Agreement’ executed between the Allottees and Sunworld;
(ii) ‘Supplementary Agreement’ executed between the Allottees and Sunworld;
(iii) ‘Tripartite Housing Loan Agreement’ between the Allottees, Sunworld, and ICICI Bank;
On 27th July 2015, in terms of the Tripartite Housing Loan Agreement, ICICI Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,02,72,000/- on 28th August 2015, payable over 240 months, subject to terms and conditions of the other agreements. Now the petitioners opt for cancellation of the allotment and a refund. Petitioner’s claims are for recovery of the amount and they want to exercise their remedy in terms of Clauses 7, 8, and 10 of the Supplementary Agreement.
ISSUE:
