In a significant order delivered on May 21, 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) dismissed a complaint filed by Nikant Steel against Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its directors seeking refund of over ₹6 crore along with 21% interest for three flats in the Sheth Blue Ivy project in Malad (East).
The complaint (CC006000000198851), filed in October 2021, stemmed from a 2012 arrangement in which Nikant Steel, a proprietary concern of Bhavesh N. Shah engaged in iron and steel supplies, claimed that outstanding dues of ₹6 crore from Sheth Developers were adjusted against the allotment of three flats in the then-named “Vasant Pearl” project (now Sheth Blue Ivy, RERA Registration No. P51800001407).
According to the complainant, three Letters of Allotment were issued on January 27, 2012, for Flat Nos. 101, 201, and 202. Nikant Steel produced receipts showing payments/receipts totaling over ₹6 crore, but the allotment letters recorded only ₹72.86 lakh as earnest money. The complainant alleged that no registered Agreement for Sale was executed, possession was never given, and the promoter violated provisions of MOFA and RERA.
Sheth Developers strongly contested the claim. They argued that only ₹72.86 lakh was received as earnest money, denied the adjustment of ₹6 crore dues, and highlighted that the complainant remained silent for several years regarding the alleged discrepancy in the allotment letters. The promoter also pointed to long-pending litigation, including a Bombay High Court suit (Suit No. 771 of 2018) that had restrained further development until April 2024, and ongoing arbitration proceedings with a co-landowner that have further stalled the project. The extended completion date for the project currently stands at November 28, 2027.
After hearing both parties on April 30, 2026, MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik passed a detailed order. The Authority observed that:
- No registered Agreement for Sale exists, which is a fundamental requirement under RERA.
- There is a major mismatch between the receipts produced by the complainant and the amounts acknowledged in the allotment letters.
- The complainant did not raise objections to this discrepancy for over five years.
- The genesis of the dispute lies in a pre-existing commercial debt for steel supplies, making the relationship between the parties unclear as promoter-allottee.
- The allotment letters do not mention any definite possession date.
- Due to ongoing court and arbitration proceedings, project completion remains highly uncertain.
MahaRERA rejected the complainant’s application to amend the relief from seeking refund to demanding possession. The Authority held that the dispute does not squarely fall within the ambit of RERA and is better suited for resolution as a civil/commercial matter before the appropriate civil court.
The complaint was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
This order underscores MahaRERA’s strict approach towards establishing a clear promoter-allottee relationship backed by proper documentation before granting relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act.
Also Read: MICL Group Expands South Mumbai Presence with ₹2,000 Cr Tardeo Redevelopment Deal
