Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 11.11.2026
Delhi HC Holds RERA Order Does Not Bar Separate Arbitration Claims
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 8800860662 and email id amitnaren@outlook.com .
The Delhi High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to decide a group of disputes between AIMS Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and purchasers of flats in its AIMS Golf Avenue project in Noida, holding that the developerβs claims can proceed under the arbitration clause in the flat-allottee agreements despite earlier Uttar Pradesh RERA proceedings.
Background: 12 connected arbitration petitions
In its order dated 16 December 2025, the Court considered 12 connected petitions filed by AIMS Promoters Pvt. Ltd. under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitions concerned disputes with Auram Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Ritu Jain, Anoop Jain and Anoop Jain (HUF), Sejal Gambhir, and Satvik Securities Pvt. Ltd.
The disputes arose from Flat Allottee(s)βs Agreements for units in AIMS Golf Avenue, Noida. AIMS Promoters alleged that the respondents had breached their contractual obligations and had not cleared outstanding dues despite repeated communications.
Why the developer approached the Court
The agreements contained an arbitration clause, identified as Clause 76, requiring disputes between the parties to be resolved through arbitration. AIMS Promoters invoked this clause through notices dated 16 November 2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
According to the order, the respondents did not agree to the appointment of an arbitrator. AIMS Promoters therefore asked the Delhi High Court to appoint a sole arbitrator for adjudication of its claims.
Respondents relied on the earlier UP RERA order
The respondents challenged the maintainability of the arbitration petitions. They argued that UP RERA had already passed a final order on 12 July 2023 that was binding on the parties and, in their view, prevented the developer from pursuing the present claims through arbitration.
The UP RERA directions required the developer to reissue possession letters, complete the flats in accordance with the agreements, hand over possession along with the occupancy or completion certificate, and facilitate registration. UP RERA also directed payment of interest to the complainants, with the interest to be adjusted against the final amount payable. It excluded interest on overdue amounts for the stated force-majeure period from 25 March 2020 to 25 September 2020.
Courtβs finding: RERA order did not decide the developerβs claims
Justice Amit Bansal found that the UP RERA order addressed the allotteesβ entitlement to possession and interest. It did not deal with the claims that AIMS Promoters sought to raise against the respondents, including the alleged outstanding dues.
The Court also noted that the respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. Referring to Section 88 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Court observed that RERA operates in addition to, rather than in derogation of, remedies under other laws.
On that basis, the Court concluded that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the developerβs claims could be determined through arbitration.
Sole arbitrator appointed under DIAC
The Court referred the disputes to a sole-arbitrator tribunal and appointed Justice (Retd.), former Judge of the Delhi High Court, to adjudicate them.
The arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitratorβs fees will be governed by the DIAC Administrative Cost and Arbitratorsβ Fees Rules, 2018. Before taking up the reference, the arbitrator must make the statutory disclosure required by Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The parties were directed to approach the arbitrator within two weeks of the order.
What remains open for arbitration
The appointment order does not decide whether any particular claim or counterclaim is arbitrable, nor does it determine the merits of either sideβs case. The Court expressly left all rights, objections, claims, counterclaims, and preliminary issues for the sole arbitrator to decide.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its referral to arbitration would not affect execution proceedings already initiated by the respondents before UP RERA.
Significance of the ruling
The order distinguishes between remedies and claims arising from the same real-estate transaction. While UP RERAβs directions concerning possession, completion and interest remain relevant and enforceable in their own sphere, they do not automatically bar arbitration of separate contractual claims that were not decided in those proceedings.
The decision therefore allows the AIMS Golf Avenue parties to pursue parallel legal routes within their respective limits: enforcement of the UP RERA order may continue, while the developerβs separate claims proceed before the DIAC-appointed sole arbitrator.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Delhi High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707