The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has allowed two homebuyers in a Matrix Enclaves project to withdraw the delay-interest amounts deposited by the promoter, but only on a strict condition — they must bring the money back if the builder succeeds in the pending appeals.
The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, passed the order on 22 September 2026 in two miscellaneous applications. The buyers can take ₹2,79,723 and ₹4,48,828 respectively, along with any interest that has accrued on the deposits.
MahaRERA First Directed Interest for Delayed Possession
The dispute began with two complaints before MahaRERA. On 19 June 2025, Member-I of the Authority partly allowed the complaints filed by Satyawan Appaji Ghagare and others, and by Shyam Ram More.
The Authority held the promoter, Matrix Enclaves Projects Development Pvt. Ltd., liable to pay interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act for delay in handing over possession.
One of the agreements for sale was executed on 3 May 2019 with a promised possession date of June 2022. Possession was actually given on 28 September 2024 — more than two years late.
Promoter Deposited Money to File Appeals
The promoter challenged the June 2025 order before the Appellate Tribunal. To maintain the appeals, it deposited the awarded amounts in the Tribunal registry under the proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA:
- ₹2,79,723 in Appeal No. AT006/00792/2025
- ₹4,48,828 in Appeal No. AT006/00820/2025
The money sat with the Tribunal while the main appeals remained pending. There was no stay on the original MahaRERA order.
Buyers Sought Immediate Release of the Deposit
The allottees then filed miscellaneous applications (M.A. Nos. 1766/26 and 1623/26) asking for withdrawal of the deposited sums.
They told the Tribunal they were ordinary salaried individuals who had invested life savings and taken home loans. They had been servicing EMIs since 2019. Every further month of delay in receiving the interest awarded by MahaRERA added to their financial strain.
They already had possession of their flats. They argued that the legislative intent behind Section 43(5) is that the deposit should benefit the allottee and should not be withheld indefinitely during an appeal. They offered to give any reasonable undertaking the Tribunal required.
Promoter Opposed Release, Sought Bank Guarantee
Counsel for Matrix Enclaves opposed the applications. The promoter argued that the buyers were already in possession and enjoying their flats, so they would suffer no irreparable loss if the money stayed locked.
Releasing the amounts at this stage, it said, would almost amount to deciding the appeals. If the buyers later sold the flats and left, recovery would become difficult if the promoter ultimately won. The promoter asked that any withdrawal be allowed only against a bank guarantee in its favour.
Tribunal Allowed Withdrawal Subject to Undertaking
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the applications.
It noted that the buyers were already burdened with home-loan EMIs and were in a precarious financial position. Keeping the money in the registry would continue that hardship.
The Bench held that an undertaking from the allottees was a sufficient safeguard. It did not insist on a bank guarantee.
The operative direction is clear: the applicants are permitted to withdraw ₹2,79,723 and ₹4,48,828 respectively, plus accrued interest if any, provided they furnish an undertaking that they shall bring the money back to the Tribunal if the promoter succeeds in the appeals.
The Registry has been directed to release the amounts by following the usual office procedure. The miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. The main appeals on the delay-interest claim itself remain pending.
What the Order Means for Homebuyers
The order does not decide whether the original MahaRERA interest award will finally stand. It only deals with who holds the deposited money while the appeals are heard.
For the two allottees, it means immediate access to the interest they were awarded in June 2025. For the promoter, it means the money is no longer sitting unused in the Tribunal, but can still be recovered if it wins.
The condition of an undertaking keeps the legal position balanced: buyers get relief now, but they remain accountable if the builder’s appeal succeeds.
