The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with orders condoning delay in a consumer complaint filed by homebuyers seeking refund of over ₹45 lakh from Godrej Projects Development Ltd., allowing the dispute to proceed before the consumer forum on merits.
In a significant ruling delivered on July 2, 2026, Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed Writ Petition No. 9689 of 2025 filed by Godrej Projects Development Ltd. against homebuyers R.K. Ramani and Jayanti Ramani. The court upheld earlier orders of the District Consumer Commission and the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission that had condoned the delay in filing the complaint.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute relates to Flat No. 103, C Wing in the Godrej Central project.
According to court records:
- The flat was booked by the Ramanis in 2015.
- The total consideration was ₹2,19,55,239.
- The buyers paid ₹45,15,844 as part consideration.
- Godrej issued an allotment letter on August 10, 2015.
The developer later alleged that the buyers failed to pay the balance amount despite repeated reminders and consequently terminated the allotment on January 28, 2016, while proceeding to forfeit the entire ₹45.15 lakh already paid.
How the Litigation Began
The buyers challenged the cancellation and forfeiture.
They first filed Consumer Complaint No. 18/685 before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 13, 2018, along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
However, on April 16, 2019, the State Commission held that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the complaint, directing the buyers to approach the appropriate forum within one month.
The complaint was eventually refiled before the District Consumer Commission on July 22, 2022.
Godrej’s Arguments
Developer’s objections to delay Condonation
Senior advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, appearing for Godrej Projects Development Ltd., argued that the delay was grossly understated.
According to the developer:
- The buyers claimed a delay of only 76 days, whereas the actual delay was 1,192 days.
- The original complaint itself had been filed beyond the two-year limitation period.
- The buyers failed to comply with the State Commission’s direction to refile within one month.
- The complaint filed before the District Commission was not a continuation of the earlier proceeding.
- No satisfactory explanation had been offered for such an inordinate delay.
Case law relied upon by the developer
- State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO
- Sri Amar Chand Inani vs. Union of India
Homebuyers’ Counter-Arguments
Buyers’ defence of the delay
Advocate Ami Mandani, appearing for Jayanti Ramani, opposed the writ petition and argued that the buyers were being unfairly deprived of a substantial amount.
She contended that:
- The buyers were always ready to pay the balance consideration.
- Godrej failed to execute a registered agreement for sale as required under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).
- The unilateral termination and forfeiture were illegal.
- After the State Commission returned the complaint, the original papers and court-fee records were not readily available.
- The buyers had to invoke the Right to Information Act to obtain documents.
- The COVID-19 pandemic further delayed proceedings.
- One complainant, R.K. Ramani, contracted COVID-19 in June 2022 and later passed away during the litigation.
Judgments cited by the buyers
- Purni Devi vs. Babu Ram
- Ram Ujarey vs. Union of India
- Vilas Tukaram Chavan vs. Suresh Bhanudas Kulkarni
- Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Ghasiram
What the High Court Observed
Court’s View
Key observations by Justice N.J. Jamadar
The High Court noted that the buyers had indeed prosecuted the earlier complaint before a forum that ultimately lacked jurisdiction. It held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which permits exclusion of time spent bona fide before a wrong forum, was applicable.
Justice Jamadar also relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice.
The court found that the buyers’ explanation was supported by contemporaneous documents showing efforts to obtain returned records and court-fee documents through RTI proceedings.
The judgment also recorded that:
- Limitation stood suspended during the pandemic pursuant to Supreme Court orders from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022.
- Medical records showed that the deceased complainant had suffered from COVID-19.
- The surviving complainant was pursuing a claim for refund of ₹45.15 lakh, a substantial amount paid in 2015.
- No registered agreement for sale had been executed despite MOFA obligations.
Final Outcome
Petition dismissed
The Bombay High Court ultimately held that the balance of justice lay in favour of the homebuyers and that there was no reason to interfere with the consumer forums’ decision condoning the delay.
As a result:
- Godrej’s writ petition was dismissed with costs.
- The delay remains condoned.
- The consumer complaint seeking refund and other reliefs will now proceed before the District Consumer Commission on merits.
Also Read: Bombay High Court: Borrowers Can’t Force Banks to Settle Defaulted Loans
