The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has rejected a plea by real estate developer Altaa Construction to unfreeze its bank accounts, which were frozen due to the company’s persistent failure to comply with orders to pay interest to allottees. The frozen account, holding Rs. 38,03,000/-, was targeted by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate as part of recovery proceedings.
The dispute originated from an order issued by the Adjudicating Officer of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority on November 9, 2020, (read with the order dated October 10, 2020), which directed Altaa Construction to pay interest at an annual rate of 10.40% on an amount of Rs. 71,00,000/- to allottees Kokilaben Ajitbhai Dalal and Viral Ajit Dalal. Altaa Construction, as respondent number 3 in the original complaint proceedings, was held jointly and severally liable for interest from September 17, 2016, until possession was delivered or an occupation certificate obtained.
Altaa Construction’s subsequent appeal against these orders was dismissed on June 29, 2021, due to its failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirements under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016. A subsequent application for restoration of the appeal, filed on November 6, 2023, also met the same fate, being rejected on September 19, 2024, for continued non-compliance with the same section of the RERA Act.
Even after an intervention by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on December 10, 2024, which granted Altaa Construction three weeks to deposit the compliance amount, the developer only paid Rs. 18,75,540/-. Deeming this insufficient for full compliance, the Tribunal, on April 23, 2025, directed the developer to deposit the remaining Rs. 42,16,260/- within four weeks, a directive that was again ignored.
The current application (Misc. Application No. 468 of 2025) was filed by Altaa Construction after the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate froze their account on the directions in a non-compliance order dated August 11, 2022. The developer sought directions for the frozen amount to be deposited with the Tribunal and for permission to deposit the balance, or alternatively, to de-freeze the account for direct deposit to the Tribunal. Altaa Construction argued that the freezing of funds curtailed its ability to comply with statutory requirements and pursue its appeal.
However, the non-applicants argued that Altaa Construction had been given numerous opportunities to comply but consistently failed, noting the impugned order was passed in 2020 and no steps were taken for compliance till date. The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson S. S. Shinde J. and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande, concurred with the non-applicants, characterizing Altaa Construction’s conduct as a “dilatory strategy with malafide intentions” to obstruct the recovery of the ordered amount. The Tribunal highlighted that the allottees had been forced to pursue their rightful dues for nearly five years.
Given this history of non-compliance and the perceived intent to delay, the Tribunal found no merit in Altaa Construction’s application and rejected it , effectively upholding the freezing of the accounts for the benefit of the allottees.
Also Read: Builder Fined, Home Buyers Protected By MAhaRERA.
