ORDER : 1. These special leave petitions and civil appeals are directed against the judgment(s) and order(s), passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, “the Commission”), in Appeal No.269 of 2012, dated 05.03.2013, and in the Review Petition No.62 of 2015, dated 08.04.2013, along with other connected matters. 2. By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) the Commission had sustained the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereby the Developer and Chandigarh Housing Board, jointly and severally, have been directed to refund the amount deposited by the buyer along with interest as per Tripartite Agreement (for short, “the Agreement”) between the parties, dated 25.08.2008. 3. At the time of the hearing of the special leave petitions and civil appeals, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel would fairly submit that the issue that requires to be considered by this Court at this stage, pertains to Clause 9(c) of the Agreement between the parties. According to the learned senior counsel, the Developer-petitioner need not have to pay the compensation for non-delivery of the flats to the buyers after the expiry of Thirty Six months/extended period as provided under Clause 9(a) of the Agreement. The learned senior counsel would further submit that, at best, the respondent(s) would be entitled only for refund of the amounts deposited by them with interest, as envisaged in Clause 9(d) of the Agreement. 4. We have carefully perused Clauses 9(c) and 9(d) of the Agreement between the parties. In our view, Clause 9(d) pertains to refund with interest if, for any reason, the Developer is not in a position to offer the flat to the buyers after the expiry of Thirty Six months/extended period. A reading of Clause 9(c) would show that the said clause also envisages a payment of compensation to the buyer at a particular rate. This clause would be applicable against the developers only if they are not in a position to offer flat to the buyer after the expiry of Thirty Six Months/extended period as stipulated under Clause 9(a) of the Agreement. 5. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Commission has not committed any mistake. 6. Further, it would be pertinent to note that the Commission has observed that its order would be subject to the pending arbitration proceedings between the Developers and the Chandigarh Housing Board. 7. 5. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Commission has not committed any mistake. 6. Further, it would be pertinent to note that the Commission has observed that its order would be subject to the pending arbitration proceedings between the Developers and the Chandigarh Housing Board. 7. In this context, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel would state that in view of the award passed by the Arbitrator the period that is stipulated in the Agreement has been extended from 06.10.2006 to 05.02.2008. We are not inclined to enter into this controversy. If, for any reason, the respondent(s)/buyer(s) file any execution petition for execution of the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Commission, the Developer is at liberty to take such objections based on award passed by the Arbitrator. If such objections are raised, it is for the executing Court to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above observations, these special leave petitions and civil appeals are disposed of. Ordered accordingly.