The “F” Bench of ITAT Mumbai (Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar) pronounced the order on 16 September 2026 in ITA No. 3596/Mum/2026 for Assessment Year 2025-26. The appeal of Varun Atul Jain, a resident of Savoy Residency, Santacruz (West), was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the demand raised by CPC-TDS and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.

Net demand: ₹57,140 — interest of ₹21,144 under section 201(1A) and late filing fee of ₹36,000 under section 234E.

The transaction

During FY 2024-25, the assessee purchased immovable property at Survey No. 190, City Survey No. NA 190, Mouje Village, Palaj, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, for ₹1,76,25,000.

• The entire consideration was paid to the seller on 8 August 2024.
• The sale deed was executed and registered in the buyer’s name on 8 October 2024.
• TDS of ₹1,76,250 (1% under section 194-IA) was deposited and Form 26QB was furnished only on 29 March 2025.

CPC-TDS processed Form 26QB under section 200A and issued an intimation dated 2 April 2025 charging interest and fee. After rounding off, the demand stood at ₹57,140.

What Form 26QB is for

Form 26QB is not a regular quarterly TDS return like Form 26Q. It is a challan-cum-statement prescribed only for TDS on purchase of immovable property (other than agricultural land) under section 194-IA.

When the sale consideration is ₹50 lakh or more, the buyer must deduct 1% tax at the time of payment or credit to the seller, whichever is earlier. Form 26QB is the single electronic document through which the buyer:

• reports the transaction (buyer and seller PAN, property details, consideration, date of payment);
• pays the TDS to the government; and
• files the statutory TDS statement for that deduction.

After the form is processed, the buyer must generate Form 16B (TDS certificate) and issue it to the seller, generally within 15 days from the due date of Form 26QB. The seller uses that credit in his income-tax return.

TAN is not required for section 194-IA. The buyer’s PAN is used.

Where the TDS is deposited and where the form is filed

Both payment and filing happen in the Income Tax Department system — not with the stamp office, sub-registrar, or any State housing regulator.

• Form 26QB is filed electronically on the Income Tax e-filing portal.
• The deducted tax is paid electronically to the credit of the Central Government through the authorised bank / RBI / SBI channel linked to that form.
• The statement is processed by CPC-TDS (Centralized Processing Cell-TDS). In this case the intimation under section 200A was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC-TDS.
• Form 16B is generated from the department’s TDS system (TRACES / e-filing).

There is no separate paper challan route that replaces Form 26QB for this type of TDS.

The prescribed time

Rule 31A(4A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 is specific. A person deducting tax under section 194-IA must furnish Form 26QB within 30 days from the end of the month in which the deduction is made. The same 30-day window applies to depositing the tax.

Deduction is triggered at the earlier of:

• credit of the amount to the seller; or
• actual payment (cash, cheque, transfer or any other mode).

The date of registration of the sale deed does not reset the clock if payment has already been made.

Applied to this case

• Full consideration was paid on 8 August 2024.
• Deduction therefore occurred in August 2024.
• Due date for deposit + Form 26QB: 30 September 2024 (30 days from 31 August).

The buyer filed Form 26QB and deposited the tax only on 29 March 2025. That is the delay CPC-TDS, CIT(A) and ITAT treated as established.

The sale deed was registered later, on 8 October 2024. That later date does not extend the due date once payment has already been made.

From the due date of 30 September 2024 to actual filing on 29 March 2025, the default ran for about six months. Fee under section 234E is ₹200 per day of delay, subject to a ceiling equal to the TDS amount. Here the fee was computed at ₹36,000. Interest under section 201(1A) was computed at ₹21,144 for the period the tax remained unpaid after it was due.

What the buyer argued

Before CIT(A) and again before ITAT, the authorised representative submitted that:

• the delay was neither intentional nor wilful;
• the buyer was unaware of the prescribed timelines;
• the accountant handling his tax work was unavailable because of medical exigencies in the accountant’s family;
• on noticing the lapse during year-end verification, the buyer immediately deposited ₹1,76,250 and filed Form 26QB on 29 March 2025;
• credit reached the seller in the same financial year, so there was no loss to the deductee or to the Revenue;
• interest and fee caused undue hardship and should be deleted because the levies are compensatory and should be applied benevolently where the default is bona fide.

What CIT(A) and ITAT held

CIT(A) refused to waive either levy. Interest under section 201(1A) was treated as statutory, mandatory and automatic once delay is proved. Fee under section 234E could be computed while processing the statement under section 200A because the statement related to a period after 1 June 2015. Reasonable cause or hardship, CIT(A) said, is not a ground to delete the statutory fee.

ITAT agreed on both counts.

On interest under section 201(1A), the bench held that liability follows by operation of law once the amount of tax and the period of delay are undisputed. Lack of awareness, the accountant’s family medical situation, absence of mala fide intent, and deposit in the same financial year do not extinguish interest. Interest compensates the government for the period the money was not with it. Compliance within the same financial year cannot substitute compliance within the time fixed by the Act and the Rules. No error in computation was shown. Ground 1 was dismissed.

On fee under section 234E, the bench held that the fee is linked to delay in furnishing the TDS statement and operates independently of whether any loss of revenue is proved. Section 200A permits the fee to be computed while processing Form 26QB for periods after 1 June 2015. The statute does not give the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority discretion to waive the fee only because there was reasonable cause or hardship. Filing in the same financial year does not cure the missed due date. No error in the period, daily rate or calculation was pointed out. Ground 2 was dismissed.

Ground 3, which repeated the plea of bona fide conduct, no loss to Revenue and hardship, was also dismissed. The appeal was dismissed in full.

Why this order matters to property buyers

The case is a reminder that section 194-IA compliance is tied to the month of payment, not to registration, possession, or 31 March.

A buyer who pays the seller in August must generally finish both the deposit and Form 26QB by the end of September. Waiting for the deed, the year-end CA review, or “when the accountant is back” is how a one-time individual purchaser ends up with a five-figure demand on top of stamp duty and registration.

ITAT has treated both charges as statutory. In this order, “I did not know the rule,” “my accountant was unwell,” and “the seller got credit in the same year” were not enough.

For readers: if consideration is ₹50 lakh or more, deduct 1% at the time of payment (or each instalment, if the price is paid in parts), file Form 26QB on the income-tax portal within 30 days from the end of that month, and issue Form 16B to the seller. The department that receives the money and the form is the Income Tax Department through CPC-TDS — not the registrar’s office.

Also Read: Hacked Email, Rs 1 Crore Property Deal and a Penalty She Never Deserved

The post Delay in filing TDS after property purchase proves costly to a homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar dismissed Revision Application No. 23 of 2026 on 7 September 2026. The revision had been filed by Bhandup Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. against an order of Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai, dated 26 February 2026. That trial court order had refused to throw out the members’ case at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Appellate Court confirmed the trial court order and directed that the dispute will now be heard on merits. It did not decide whether the allotment itself was legal or illegal.

What the five members objected to

The society, registered in 1961 and located at 36, Parimal, Jaydeep Nagar, Bhandup (East), has 32 members and 32 flats in buildings constructed around 1989 (stilt plus four floors). Redevelopment talks began in 2016. A development agreement was executed on 9 November 2023 with M/s. Majestic City Royale Developers of Chembur.

The members — K.S.S. Nair (D-23), Vilas K. Aphale (D-15), Vijendra Ingle (A-18, through constituted attorney Sanjay P. Badekar), Sanjay P. Badekar (C-5) and Om Prakash M. Rahi (D-31) — filed Dispute No. CC/III/65/2025. They asked the Co-operative Court to set aside two Special General Body Meeting resolutions:

• 8 October 2023
• 22 September 2024

Those resolutions concerned allotment of flats in the new building. The members also sought an injunction against their implementation.

Their core complaint, as recorded in the judgment, was not that the society should not redevelop. It was that the method of allotment was illegal.

They alleged that the 8 October 2023 meeting took an “out of the blue” decision on allotment. The agenda notice issued on 3 October 2023, they said, did not mention allotment of flats. An issue of that importance was therefore brought up without prior circulation.

They further alleged that both resolutions were arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the State Government’s guidelines dated 4 July 2019 issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. They pointed to clause 1(d) of the development agreement, which they said required the developer — not the society — to carry out allotment.

They also relied on a direction of the Assistant Registrar dated 9 January 2025, asking the society to take cognizance of their complaint and to allot flats as provided in clause 18(11) of the 4 July 2019 directives. The members said the society had not followed that direction. They added that allotment before grant of Occupation Certificate was premature.

In short: the dispute, as framed by the members, was about internal resolutions on who gets which flat, how that decision was taken, and whether government guidelines on redevelopment allotment were followed.

Society’s stand: this is not a Co-op Court matter

After receiving summons, the society applied under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC to reject the dispute for want of jurisdiction.

Its argument was familiar in redevelopment litigation. Redevelopment, it said, is not the “business” of a co-operative housing society. A challenge to allotment flowing from a development agreement is a contractual dispute. Such a dispute belongs in a civil court or before an arbitrator, not before the Co-operative Court.

The society pointed to an arbitration clause in the 9 November 2023 agreement. It also relied on model bye-law 176(c), which it said sends disputes about non-compliance with a builder-society agreement — especially specific performance — to the civil court.

It cited judgments including Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Margaret Almeida, Vardhaman Developers and Mohinder Kaur Kochar, and argued that Section 91 of the MCS Act is not attracted when the real grievance is implementation of a redevelopment contract with a third-party developer.

It further submitted that the two resolutions were only procedural steps to implement the development agreement, and that the members were in substance seeking enforcement of clause 1(d). Once rights flow from the agreement, it argued, Section 91 “automatically disappears.”

The society also relied on the Bombay High Court’s observations in the Bhoumik Co-operative Housing Society / Parimal H. Solanki matter: after the 2019 amendment, redevelopment became part of the statutory definition of a housing society, but existing bye-laws continue until they are expressly amended. If a society’s bye-laws do not list redevelopment as an object, that fact cannot be ignored.

Members’ reply on jurisdiction

The members said the application was a delay tactic. They were challenging general body resolutions and the allotment done under those resolutions. Internal management, they argued, is governed by bye-laws. Model bye-laws themselves place “resolutions of the managing committee and general body” and “allotment of flats/plots” within the Co-operative Court’s complaint-redressal framework.

They stressed that the parties are members versus their own society. That, they said, is enough for locus under Section 91. They were not asking for money or refund; they were attacking the legality of resolutions. Consequences flowing from those resolutions could be examined in the same court.

They relied on the Bombay High Court ruling in Eknath Namdev Lashkare v. Pancharatna Properties, where a challenge connected with a development agreement and a general body resolution was held to touch the business and management of the society.

What Section 91 actually requires

The Appellate Court restated the settled two-part test under Section 91 of the MCS Act, drawing from the Bombay High Court’s decision in Baliram Misal v. Saujanya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 17591 of 2025):

1. The dispute must concern the subject-matters listed in the section.
2. The parties must fall within the categories listed in Section 91(1)(a) to (e).

Both conditions must be met.

Here, the first condition on parties was admitted: the disputants are members; opponent No. 1 is their registered housing society.

The real fight was the second condition — whether the dispute “touches the business of the society.”

Why the Appellate Court kept the case in the Co-op Court

The Court applied another settled rule: on an Order VII Rule 11 application, the court looks only at the plaint (here, the dispute application), not at the society’s defence, not at documents filed by the opponent, and not at a dissected reading of one sentence. The plaint must be read as a whole. The Court relied on Supreme Court principles summarised in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy.

On that reading, the members had challenged two general body resolutions on allotment. They alleged absence of agenda, arbitrary decision-making and breach of the 79A guidelines. Passing resolutions for management of the society’s affairs, the Court held, is the business of the society. A dispute attacking those resolutions therefore touches the business of the society.

The Court noted that the members had not, in their pleadings, mounted a frontal challenge to the development agreement itself. They had attacked the resolutions and sought reliefs flowing from that challenge. Whether those reliefs will ultimately be granted is a matter for trial. It cannot be decided by throwing the case out at the door.

The Court also recorded a practical rule used in such cases: if even one of the reliefs is within the Co-operative Court’s domain, the court has jurisdiction to try the dispute. Challenge to general body resolutions on flat allotment is such a relief.

The Parimal Solanki / Bhoumik CHS precedent was held inapplicable on facts. That case turned on whether unamended bye-laws could be read as if they already included redevelopment as an object. In the present case, the members had specifically challenged the society’s own resolutions. That, the Court said, was enough.

The Lashkare judgment, relied on by the members, was discussed. The facts were different — there an administrator had executed a development agreement — but the High Court had held that a connected dispute could touch management and business of the society. The Appellate Court used that principle to support maintainability, while noting that here the members had not asked for the development agreement to be declared void.

On that reasoning, the trial court’s refusal to reject the plaint was held legal. There was no illegality or material irregularity. Interference in revision was declined.

What the Court did not decide

This order is only on maintainability.

The Appellate Court has not held that the 8 October 2023 or 22 September 2024 resolutions are illegal. It has not held that allotment must be done by the developer and not the society. It has not held that the 79A circular was breached. It has not granted any injunction.

Those questions remain open before Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai. The society can still contest the members’ case on facts and law. The developer remains a party as original opponent No. 2.

No costs were awarded.

Why the ruling matters beyond Bhandup

Redevelopment disputes often stall at the first hearing on a single line of defence: “This is not the business of the society; go to the civil court or to arbitration.”

This judgment draws a line that many managing committees and members will use. A frontal attack on a development agreement, or a pure claim for specific performance against a developer, may still belong elsewhere. But when members attack their society’s own general body resolutions on how flats are allotted in the new building — agenda, process, alleged discrimination, alleged breach of Section 79A directives — the Co-operative Court is not stripped of jurisdiction merely because a developer and a development agreement exist in the background.

For members, the practical effect is access to a specialised forum without first losing years on a preliminary objection. For societies, the practical effect is that a majority resolution on allotment is not immune from scrutiny inside the co-operative court system simply because the project is a redevelopment.

The dispute now goes back for a full hearing on whether those two allotment resolutions were valid.

Also Read: Co-op Court CAN Hear Redevelopment, Till This Document Is Signed

The post Unhappy with allotted flats after redevelopment? Members can sue society in Co-op Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Peg: A Phased Path Out of the Iran War Is Being Explored. Crude Responds Immediately.

The most important development overnight — and the one that will shape the realty sector’s entire Friday — is the report that the United States and Iran are exploring a phased path out of the war. Both parties are said to be engaging through Omani intermediaries on a structured de-escalation framework that would involve phased withdrawal of US military pressure in exchange for phased Iranian commitments on the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear programme limitations. The word “phased” is the critical qualifier — it signals a structured, verifiable process rather than another announcement that can be reversed by a single presidential statement or IRGC military action.

Crude’s immediate response tells the market how seriously it is taking the report. Brent fell over 1% to $105.73 in Asian trade hours. For a market that had been watching crude climb toward $110 through Thursday’s session on US bond yield fears and Iran escalation risk, a 1% single-session fall on a phased truce report is a meaningful directional signal — not the $4-5% single-session crashes that formal announcements have produced, but a credible directional move that reflects genuine belief in the report’s substance.

For the realty sector, the “phased path” framing is actually more constructive than a dramatic one-day announcement would be. A phased process — even a slow one — provides a predictable direction for crude oil prices: gradually lower as each phase of de-escalation delivers supply normalisation. That predictability is what allows developers to rebuild their Q2 FY27 cost assumptions, what allows the RBI to assess whether its October MPC decision requires hawkish action, and what allows institutional investors to rebuild rate-sensitive sector positions with confidence rather than with anxiety about the next overnight shock.

How Realty Stocks Are Opening

The Nifty50 at 23,050 in early trade — 13 points below Thursday’s 23,063 close — is essentially flat. The gap-down that Thursday’s worst-since-March-9 session could have triggered on Friday morning has not materialised. GIFT Nifty’s muted 16-point negative signal, combined with crude falling on truce talks, has given the market the most benign possible Friday open after one of its most severe Thursday sessions.

The Nifty Realty index opens Friday at approximately 810–820 — having absorbed Thursday’s market-wide crash proportionally. The sector that had been recovering through Monday’s and Wednesday’s positive sessions saw those gains fully erased by Thursday’s ₹4.11 lakh crore wealth destruction event. Friday’s task is to begin rebuilding what Thursday destroyed — starting from the position of a sector whose fundamental story — record Q1 FY27 presales, MoHUA RERA protection, structural housing demand, 7.8% GDP growth — has not changed through a single session of the market’s worst day in six months.

DLF, the index’s largest constituent at a 26.86% weight, opens Friday with cautious buying. The stock at approximately ₹620–635 — having been pulled lower by Thursday’s market-wide crash — sits at the most compelling valuation relative to analyst targets of ₹775 that it has reached in this entire CY26 correction cycle. The distance between current price and analyst target has never been wider in CY26. And the catalyst that closes that distance — a credible Iran phased truce that pushes crude sustainably below $90 — is now being reported as actively in discussion.

Godrej Properties opens Friday near ₹1,780–1,820. The company’s ₹27,000 crore FY27 presales target and ₹2 lakh crore gross development value pipeline are the forward demand anchors that keep institutional buyers present even on the mornings after ₹4.11 lakh crore wealth destruction events. At current levels, Godrej Properties is trading at one of its deepest CY26 discounts to analyst targets. The phased Iran truce report is the macro development that gives institutional investors the most credible path they have seen since August to rebuilding positions at these discounted levels.

Lodha Developers, Prestige Estates Projects, Sobha, Phoenix Mills, Brigade Enterprises, Anant Raj, Aditya Birla Real Estate, and Oberoi Realty all open Friday with a cautious positive to flat bias — the sector attempting to hold what is left of the week’s recovery and demonstrate that Thursday was a market-level event rather than a sector-specific verdict.

NSE shares — which had debuted at ₹1,841 on Thursday before falling 1.54% to ₹1,790 on their listing day — open Friday at further pressure near ₹1,790. The exchange’s second trading day is being watched as a signal of whether Thursday’s listing excitement can translate into genuine secondary market demand for the NSE as a company. A stabilisation in NSE shares above the issue price of ₹1,753 would be a constructive signal for the broader primary market sentiment.

What Is Working

The US-Iran phased truce report is Friday’s single most important positive catalyst — and its impact on crude is already visible at $105.73, down 1.18% from Thursday’s close. A “phased path out of the war” being explored by both parties is qualitatively different from any single-statement de-escalation signal the market has received since the conflict began in February. A phased process implies structured engagement, verification mechanisms, and a timeline — all of which are the ingredients of a durable arrangement rather than a fragile one. For the realty sector, a phased Iran truce that delivers crude below $100 on a sustainable basis would be the most powerful single macro positive the sector could receive in October — and the reports suggest that process is underway.

DIIs buying ₹4,301 crore on Thursday — even as Thursday became the worst single day since March 9 and FIIs sold ₹5,027.36 crore — is the domestic institutional floor signal that has now held through every market crisis of CY26. DIIs deploying ₹4,301 crore on a day when ₹4.11 lakh crore of investor wealth was erased is a statement of conviction that has no precedent in terms of its consistency through the year’s volatility. Friday’s market open — stabilised by the Iran truce report — gives those DII buyers a better backdrop than Thursday’s session had provided.

Japan’s Nikkei rising 1.30% on Friday morning — despite the Hang Seng falling 1.64% — reflects the divergence in Asian markets based on their exposure to the US-Iran situation. Japan, as a major crude oil importer like India, benefits more directly from any Iran truce signal than Hong Kong, whose market dynamics are driven more by China-related concerns. Japan’s positive response to the phased truce report is the regional peer signal that most directly validates Friday’s constructive domestic realty sector positioning.

Trump and Xi Jinping having met — with markets now assessing the outcome — provides an additional global de-escalation positive. A US-China relationship that is managing its tensions through direct presidential dialogue reduces the geopolitical risk premium embedded in global equity markets broadly. Any positive Trump-Xi outcome reported through Friday’s session would add a second concurrent geopolitical positive to the Iran truce report and give the realty sector a genuinely supportive global backdrop for its Friday recovery attempt.

What Isn’t Working

Crude at $105.73 — despite the 1.18% fall — is still approximately $34 above the sub-$72 levels that had powered the realty sector’s peak performance in early July. Friday’s crude decline on the phased truce report is directionally correct and psychologically significant, but it does not change the input cost reality for developers whose construction sites are running on diesel that remains dramatically more expensive than pre-war levels. Until crude falls sustainably below $90 — which requires the phased truce process to deliver actual implementation rather than just reports — the construction cost pressure on Q2 FY27 developer margins remains a genuine operational headwind.

Thursday’s ₹4.11 lakh crore single-day wealth destruction has created technical damage that one positive Friday session cannot repair. The Nifty at 23,063 at Thursday’s close — and at approximately 23,050 at Friday’s early open — is below the 23,150–73,800 levels that technical analysts had identified as the key support zone. With the index below that zone, the current market texture remains “weak” according to the prevailing technical assessment, and a sustained recovery above 23,150 is required before the broader market’s technical picture can be called constructive.

Nifty IT continuing under pressure at Friday’s open — with OFSS, Infosys, and Mphasis among the top Nifty IT losers — is the persistent secondary negative for the sector’s residential demand story in technology cities. Four consecutive weeks of IT sector underperformance are now beginning to translate from a stock market concern into a potential employment sentiment concern in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Pune. While IT companies have not announced formal hiring freezes or pay reductions, sustained stock price underperformance creates cautious sentiment among IT sector employees — the very population that generates the most consistent residential demand in those cities.

FII selling at ₹5,027.36 crore on Thursday — their eighth selling session in the past nine trading days — confirms that global institutional investors are in sustained India exit mode driven by the combination of rising US bond yields, crude above $100, and the Fed’s forward guidance for further tightening. That structural FII selling pattern will not reverse on a single Friday morning’s phased truce report. It will reverse when crude falls sustainably, when the Fed’s rate cycle peaks, and when the rupee stabilises — a process that the phased truce report has begun, but that requires weeks of diplomatic progress to complete.

What to Watch Through the Day

Any update on the US-Iran phased truce framework through Friday’s session is the day’s most critical variable. If either the US State Department or Iranian Foreign Ministry formally confirms that exploratory talks on a phased de-escalation are underway — even in general terms — crude would fall further from $105.73 and the realty sector would extend Friday’s cautious recovery into a more decisive positive session. Watch for any formal diplomatic statement through the morning hours.

Trump-Xi meeting outcomes are the second external variable to track. Any formal trade, technology, or security agreement emerging from the meeting would reduce global geopolitical risk premium and support FII flows back into emerging markets including India. A constructive Trump-Xi outcome and a confirmed Iran phased truce on the same Friday would be the most powerful combination of geopolitical de-escalation signals the market could receive before the weekend.

Crude oil’s hold below $106 through Friday’s full session — closing below that level — would be the week-ending energy market signal that validates the phased truce report’s market impact as durable. A closing Brent below $105 would be even more constructive — signalling that the energy market is pricing a phased supply normalisation process rather than just a temporary diplomatic optimism relief.

Within the sector, watch DLF through the session. As the index’s largest constituent at a 26.86% weight, and the stock trading at its widest CY26 discount to analyst targets of ₹775, DLF’s Friday close will be the most telling signal of whether institutional investors are treating Thursday’s crash as a capitulation buying opportunity or as a confirmation that the macro deterioration has further to run. A DLF close above ₹635 today would be the sector’s most constructive individual Friday signal.

Brigade Enterprises’ Q1 FY27 presales — the sector’s most anticipated remaining undisclosed data point — could still arrive through Friday’s session. A strong Brigade presales number on a Friday where the Iran phased truce report has lifted crude sentiment would give the sector its most complete combination of macro and fundamental positives that it has seen in weeks.

Friday September 25 closes what has been the realty sector’s most turbulent week since the July crude crisis. Monday ended six weeks of losses. Tuesday and Wednesday consolidated. Thursday crashed 1,248 Sensex points. And Friday is asking the question that every recovery period eventually asks: was Thursday the capitulation — the moment when the last reluctant seller finally sold — or is there more pain ahead? Crude falling on phased Iran truce talks, DIIs having bought ₹4,301 crore on Thursday’s worst day, and a sector trading at its widest CY26 discount to analyst targets all argue for the former. The week of September 28 — and the first formal festive season homebuying data — will begin providing the answer.

Also Read: Realty Stocks Face Fed Headwind After Four-Day Rally

The post Realty Stocks Attempt a Week-End Bounce as US-Iran Truce Talks Push Crude Below $106 appeared first on Square Feat India.

MahaRERA has held that it cannot direct a promoter to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a flat, even when homebuyers specifically ask for one. In an ex-parte order dated 4 September 2026 in the Navkar Heights project, Member-II Ravindra Deshpande rejected the buyers’ prayer for an NOC, saying the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not give the Authority power to force a builder to issue such a certificate.

The finding is significant because homebuyers routinely need a builder’s NOC for several practical purposes: bank home loans and mortgage creation, society membership or transfer, resale or further sale, property mutation and tax records, electricity and water connections, parking confirmation, and sometimes loan foreclosure or bank NOC at the time of sale. When a promoter delays or refuses that paper, buyers often turn to RERA. This order makes clear that, on the current wording of the Act, MahaRERA will not treat “issue NOC” as a relief it can grant.

Two Flats, One Project, Unregistered Agreements

The complaints were filed on 18 May 2023 by Prakash Gopal Bhanushali (Complaint No. CC006000000395849) for Flat 101 and Pasmina Prakash Bhanushali (Complaint No. CC006000000395850) for Flat 102 in Navkar Heights, registered as MahaRERA project P51800004596.

The promoter is Navkar Groups Private Limited. Two directors, Sachin Pravin Gosar and Sanjay Sadashiv Samant, were also made respondents. Each flat is 600 sq ft carpet, sold at ₹80 lakh plus one car parking space.

Unregistered agreements for sale were executed on 19 November 2020. The buyers said they were shown the original RERA registration certificate with a completion date of 31 December 2020 and were told possession would follow that timeline.

How Much Was Paid

• Flat 101: ₹61 lakh paid (₹11 lakh on 13 November 2020 and ₹50 lakh on 19 November 2020). About 76% of the price. Balance ₹19 lakh was payable at OC.
• Flat 102: ₹50 lakh paid on 19 November 2020. Balance ₹30 lakh was payable at OC.

The agreements recorded these payments. The buyers said they repeatedly asked for registration of the agreements and that a legal notice dated 11 November 2022 went unanswered.

Builder Stayed Away, Case Went Ex Parte

The matters were heard on 28 April 2026. Counsel appeared for the complainants. Nobody appeared for the respondents, despite notice and a hearing link. They had also failed to upload a reply by the earlier deadline of 16 February 2026. MahaRERA proceeded ex parte and reserved the order after written arguments were filed.

Section 13: More Than 10% Taken Without Registered Agreement

The Authority relied on Section 13 of the Act: a promoter cannot accept more than 10% of the cost of the apartment without first entering into a written agreement for sale and registering it.

Here, agreements were signed but never registered, and amounts far above 10% had already been collected. That, MahaRERA held, was a default of Section 13. It therefore directed the promoter to register the already executed agreements.

Delay, Lapsed Project and Section 18 Interest

The buyers also sought interest for delayed possession at 24% per annum. They did not formally pray for possession as a standalone relief, but the Authority treated registration of the agreement as a step toward possession.

The agreements did not contain a clear possession date. Annexure D, which was supposed to mention it, was not found in the papers. MahaRERA therefore used the original proposed completion date on the RERA certificate: 31 December 2020. Possession was not given by that date. The project was later extended to 31 December 2023 and is now shown as lapsed.

Under the proviso to Section 18(1), if the allottee does not withdraw, the promoter must pay interest for every month of delay until possession. The Authority granted interest at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% from 1 January 2021 till actual possession — not the 24% the buyers had asked for.

It also directed the promoter to revive the lapsed project within 30 days.

What MahaRERA Granted

The complaints were allowed in part. The order directs:

1. Immediate steps to revive the project within 30 days of the order.
2. After revival, register the already executed agreements for Flats 101 and 102 within 30 days.
3. After receiving the remaining consideration, hand over possession of both flats with OC within 30 days of receipt of OC.
4. Pay delay interest at SBI highest MCLR + 2% from 1 January 2021 till possession.
5. Interest and unpaid sale consideration may be set off against each other.
6. Pay ₹20,000 costs to each complainant.

The two named directors are respondents along with the company, so the directions run against all of them.

The NOC Prayer — And Why It Was Rejected

Both buyers had asked MahaRERA to direct the respondents to “provide the Non-Objection Certificate (NOC) against the said Flat as and when required.”

The order does not record the specific use — loan, society, mutation, utilities or resale. MahaRERA rejected the prayer in one line of reasoning: no provision of the Act allows the Authority to direct a promoter to issue an NOC.

That is the peg. Even where the builder has taken most of the money, signed an unregistered agreement, delayed possession and let the project lapse, RERA still will not pass a direction saying “issue NOC.”

Why Homebuyers Usually Ask for a Builder NOC

In Mumbai and the rest of Maharashtra, allottees commonly need a promoter’s NOC for:

• Creating a mortgage or taking / enhancing a home loan
• Society formation, membership or transfer of share certificate
• Resale or further agreement with a new buyer
• Mutation and property-tax records
• Electricity, water or other utility connections
• Confirmation of parking allotment
• Bank formalities at the time of sale or loan closure

When the builder withholds that paper, the buyer is stuck even if RERA later orders registration and possession. This order underlines that gap: MahaRERA can order registration of the agreement, revival of a lapsed project, possession with OC and statutory interest. It will not, on the present Act, order an NOC.

What the Order Does Not Do

• It does not award 24% interest.
• It does not impose a project-wide penalty of up to 5% of estimated project cost.
• It does not revoke any licence.
• It does not grant an interim freeze in the form the buyers first sought, because the final order itself directs registration and possession.
• It does not explain what document the buyers meant by “NOC against the said Flat.”

For homebuyers, the practical takeaway is split. On money, delay and unregistered agreements, MahaRERA still has teeth. On a builder’s refusal to issue an NOC, this order says the statute does not give the regulator that lever.

Also Read: MahaRERA Launches New Website MahaCRITI

The post MahaRERA Says It Cannot Force Builders to Issue Flat NOCs to Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background: Court slams delays in compensation payment

The GR, dated September 22, 2026, comes after the Bombay High Court expressed strong displeasure over repeated delays in paying enhanced compensation even after court orders. In a writ petition (First Appeal No. 2109/2025, Government of Maharashtra vs. Jubeda Fakir Mohammed), the High Court noted that when compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act is not paid within the stipulated time, statutory interest becomes payable, imposing an additional financial burden on the public exchequer.

The Court directed that merely framing rules and procedures is not enough; there must be a clear mechanism to fix direct responsibility for delays and take strict action against officers who cause unnecessary hold-ups without valid reasons.

Key directions in the GR

The Revenue Department’s GR lays down a tight timeline and accountability framework for all Divisional Commissioners, Collectors, Land Acquisition Officers (LAOs), and land acquisition bodies:

1. Decision on filing appeals within one month

• In cases where courts have ordered enhanced compensation, the government must decide within one month from the date of the court order whether to file an appeal before a higher court (including the Supreme Court).
• This decision must be taken after considering existing government standing orders and obtaining opinions from relevant government advocates.

2. One-month deadline to deposit enhanced compensation

• If the decision is to comply with the court order (or if no appeal is filed), the enhanced compensation amount must be deposited within one month.
• The amount must be deposited either in the concerned court or in the Land Acquisition Officer’s own treasury account, case by case, as per the court’s directions.
• If an appeal is filed, the officer must still ensure that the compensation amount is deposited as directed by the court or in the LAO’s account, pending final outcome.

3. Personal accountability and disciplinary action

• If the enhanced compensation is not deposited within the prescribed time without any justifiable reason, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer or the official of the land acquisition body will be held directly responsible (accountable).
• In such cases, immediate disciplinary proceedings must be initiated against the officer under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

4. Recovery of loss to government exchequer

• The GR notes that in several cases, interest payable due to delayed payment has even exceeded the principal compensation amount, causing significant loss to the government.
• Officers responsible for such delays—including interest and additional amounts payable—will be liable for disciplinary action and recovery proceedings for the loss caused to the government.

5. Separate register for court-ordered cases

• Collectors, LAOs, and land acquisition bodies must maintain a separate register for all cases where courts have passed specific orders.
• This register must track:
  • Conditions and timelines in the court order
  • Amount to be deposited
  • Interest implications
  • Status of compliance
• Officers must ensure that lack of fund availability does not become a reason for delaying compensation payments.

6. Monthly review and escalation

• Divisional Commissioners, Collectors, LAOs, and acquisition bodies must conduct a monthly review of all such court-directed land acquisition cases.
• If any non-compliance or delay is found in implementing court orders, following timelines, or adhering to government instructions, proposals for disciplinary action must be immediately sent to the competent authority against the concerned officers.

Who is covered

The GR is addressed to a wide range of authorities involved in land acquisition across the state, including:

• All Divisional Commissioners and Collectors
• All Deputy Collectors (Land Acquisition) across divisions (Konkan, Pune, Nashik, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nagpur, Amravati)
• National Highways Authority of India (regional offices)
• Railway development authorities and zonal railways
• Urban development bodies (MMRDA, PMRDA, NMRDA, etc.)
• State development corporations (MSRDC, MIDC, MADC, MHADA, etc.)
• Irrigation and water resources departments
• Power transmission and generation companies
• Airport development corporation, state road transport, and other infrastructure agencies

This ensures that the accountability mechanism applies not only to revenue department officers but also to officials of all acquiring bodies that undertake land acquisition for public projects.

Why this matters

Land acquisition delays have long been a major source of litigation and cost escalation in infrastructure and housing projects in Maharashtra. By:

• Fixing a strict one-month timeline for decisions and deposits,
• Mandating personal accountability for officers, and
• Linking delays to disciplinary action and financial recovery,

the state is signaling zero tolerance for administrative inertia in implementing court orders on compensation.

The move is expected to:

• Reduce pendency of land acquisition cases in courts,
• Lower interest burdens on the state exchequer, and
• Improve trust among landowners that court-awarded compensation will be paid on time.

Also Read: Acquisition of 12.75-acre land parcel in Thane

The post Maharashtra Makes Land Acquisition Officers Personally Liable for Delaying Court-Ordered Compensation appeared first on Square Feat India.

Land parcels and locations

The deal covers six land parcels across two localities in western Mumbai’s Borivali suburb:

• BSNL land at Gorai: One large parcel covering CTS numbers 22, 23, 25, 63 (part), 64 and FP No. 460, totaling 41.32 acres, valued at around ₹4,017.26 crore.
• MTNL land at Shimpoli–Eksar, Borivali: Five plots (FP 468; Plots 390, 374/A/3; and survey numbers 1387, 1387/1–6, 1387/12–21, 1387/27; plus FP 392), together measuring 29.74 acres and valued at about ₹3,250.26 crore.

Combined, the six parcels add up to 71.06 acres with a total estimated market value of ₹7,267.52 crore; the government’s approval cites an overall outlay of roughly ₹7,500 crore when including ancillary costs.

Purpose: affordable housing under PMAY

The land is being acquired by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) through its implementing arm, Maharashtra Housing Development Corporation (Mahahousing), primarily for affordable housing projects under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY).

Earlier approvals in April 2026 had already cleared about 28.84 acres of “reserved” BSNL-MTNL land in Gorai and Shimpoli for PMAY housing at an estimated ₹729 crore, setting the policy direction for using these telecom PSU lands for low-cost housing. The latest Government Resolution (GR) expands that plan to cover additional reserved/unreserved parcels and formalizes the funding mechanism.

Funding structure and financial approvals

The September 23, 2026 GR (No. Mahahousing-2025/Pr.Kr.265/GruNidhi-2) lays out a multi-layered financing plan:

• In-principle approval: About ₹7,500 crore is approved in principle for acquiring the six properties and meeting related expenses such as stamp duty, registration fees, and other transaction costs.
• Immediate fund release for MTNL parcels: For the five MTNL plots, the state approves releasing ₹3,446 crore from the Maharashtra Housing Fund to Mahahousing. This includes ₹3,250 crore for land purchase and around ₹196 crore for stamp duty, registration, protective structures, security fencing, etc.
• Housing cess contribution: The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) is directed to deposit its share of funds into Mahahousing’s designated bank account (Indian Bank, BKC branch) as per details specified in the GR.
• Adjustment of earlier deposit: An amount previously approved as a deposit (under a January 13, 2026 GR) is to be adjusted against the land purchase cost.
• Borrowing via HUDCO: Mahahousing is authorized to raise funds through loans/lines of credit from Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd (HUDCO) for the BSNL/MTNL land acquisition and related project costs.
• Annual tranche from Housing Fund: Up to ₹750 crore per year is to be made available to Mahahousing from the Maharashtra Housing Fund towards HUDCO loan installments.
• Repayment terms: Mahahousing will repay the Housing Fund at HUDCO’s rate of interest plus 0.50%, and the Fund will have a first charge on revenues from Mahahousing projects until full repayment.

Role of National Land Monetization Corporation (NLMC)

The deal is structured within the broader central-government push to monetize non-core assets of public sector enterprises. The National Land Monetization Corporation (NLMC), under the Department of Public Enterprises, has been advising on valuation and monetization of BSNL/MTNL lands, including these Borivali parcels.

Record of Discussions with NLMC notes that for the BSNL Gorai land (41 acres), a portion (about 21 acres) is reserved for a crematorium; final valuation and purchase will be concluded after the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) issues the relevant reservation notification and revised ready reckoner-based valuations are worked out.

Administrative and compliance aspects

The GR also sets strict controls on fund usage and accounting:

• Funds released from the Maharashtra Housing Fund must be used only for the specified purpose—acquiring these BSNL/MTNL lands and associated project costs.
• Mahahousing and the Finance Controller of MHADA must maintain detailed records and reconciliation of all funds received and repaid.
• The decision is published on the Maharashtra government website with a unique code and will be formally notified in the Government Gazette.

Why this matters for Mumbai’s housing market

Borivali, especially Gorai and Shimpoli–Eksar, is a high-demand western suburb with limited large contiguous land banks. Converting over 71 acres of telecom PSU land into affordable housing can significantly boost supply under PMAY, potentially adding thousands of units over the next few years if developed in phases.

By using ready reckoner-based valuations and a structured funding route via HUDCO and the state Housing Fund, the government aims to balance fiscal prudence with accelerated project execution, while also supporting the central government’s asset monetization agenda for BSNL and MTNL.

Also Read: Maharashtra Renews Borivali RTO Office Lease, Approves ₹25.77 Lakh Rent Payment

The post Maha Govt to Buy 71-Acre BSNL-MTNL Land in Mumbai for ₹7,500 Crore appeared first on Square Feat India.

• Tenure: 11 months (1 November 2026 to 30 September 2027)
• License / rent commencement: 1 November 2026
• Fit-out / rent-free: 21 September 2026 to 31 October 2026
• License fee: ₹5,00,000 a month, ₹55,00,000 paid in full in advance on 16 September 2026
• Lock-in: entire 11-month licence period
• CAM and property tax: included in the licence fee; borne by the licensor
• Car parks: 2 reserved stilt parks
• Premises: Offices 801 and 802, 8th floor, Lotus Grandeur, Veera Desai Road Ext., Andheri West

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Private Limited has given offices 801 and 802 on the 8th floor of Lotus Grandeur, Andheri West, on an 11-month leave and licence to Rhea and Dia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., according to the registered agreement provided by CRE Matrix, a real estate data analytics firm. The instrument was executed in Mumbai on 21 September 2026 and registered as MB113-20899-2026 at the Joint Sub-Registrar, Mumbai-13. Stamp duty of ₹27,500 and registration fee of ₹1,000 (total ₹28,500; GRN MH010555267202627E) were paid the same day. Document handling charges of ₹2,000 were paid by the licensor.

The licensor is Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (CIN U92100MH2005PTC152918; PAN AACCN0909J), registered at the 17th floor of the same Lotus Grandeur building, Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri West. It signed through authorised signatory Nusrat Javed Khan under a board resolution dated 18 September 2026. The licensee is Rhea and Dia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (CIN U55101MH2026PTC468475), registered at Office C/210, 2nd Floor, Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, Oshiwara, Andheri West, signed through Sagar Prakash Bhosle.

The premises

The licensed units are offices 801 and 802 on the 8th floor of Lotus Grandeur, on CTS No. 737/9/12/C-D, Village Oshiwara, Taluka Andheri, Veera Desai Road Extension, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053, together with two reserved stilt-level car parks. The licence is for commercial office use, on an as-is-where-is basis, and is expressed as a personal permission that does not create tenancy.

Period and fee

The licence runs 11 months from 1 November 2026 to 30 September 2027. Fit-out from the execution date of 21 September 2026 through 31 October 2026 is rent-free. Occupation and fee both start on 1 November 2026.

The licensee has already paid the full 11-month fee of ₹55 lakh (₹5 lakh a month, including TDS) by NEFT/RTGS on 16 September 2026. GST on the fee is extra and stays with the licensee. Property tax and society or condominium maintenance are built into that fee and stay with the licensor. Electricity, internet, telephone and other utilities are paid by the licensee at actuals, including during fit-out.

Lock-in

The entire 11-month term is the lock-in. Neither side may terminate during that period except the licensor under the default clause. If the agreement is ended during lock-in, the prepaid fee is not refunded. Renewal, if both sides agree, needs a fresh registered deed.

This 801–802 take sits on the same 8th floor of Lotus Grandeur as the longer 803–804 licence between the same two companies. An 11-month prepaid ₹55 lakh licence, CAM bundled into the fee and a full-term lock-in is now on the public registration record circulated by CRE Matrix.

Also Read: 21 Acres of land sold in Thane for ₹471 Crore

The post Nadiadwala Lets Grandeur Offices to Rhea & Dia for ₹55 Lakh Prepaid appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Peg: NSE Lists, Sensex Falls 600 Points, and India VIX Jumps 11% — All Before 11 AM

The NSE listing is the event that every Indian financial market participant has been watching since the ₹22,562 crore IPO opened for subscription on September 17. The exchange that hosts virtually every major Indian equity transaction has itself become a listed entity — and its debut on the BSE at ₹1,841, surpassing HUL and Titan in the top market-cap list within minutes, is the kind of milestone moment that generates both celebration and distraction in equal measure.

But markets do not pause for celebration. Wall Street’s overnight fall — driven by rising US bond yields and fresh concerns about the persistence of global inflation — has arrived simultaneously with the NSE’s listing day to create the most complex single-session market environment of September. The Nasdaq’s 1.13% decline reflects technology sector nervousness. The S&P 500’s 0.72% drop reflects broader growth concerns. And India VIX jumping 11.30% to 11.52 in early trade — the sharpest single-session volatility spike in weeks — tells the most specific story: institutional investors are buying put protection aggressively, pricing in elevated near-term uncertainty that goes beyond the NSE listing’s excitement.

For the realty sector, this combination creates an environment where the week’s positive momentum — two consecutive sessions of recovery, crude below $100, US-Iran diplomatic progress signals — is being tested by a market-level risk-off move driven entirely by external factors. The sector’s own story has not changed on Thursday morning. Its construction cost pressures are easing with crude below $100. Its demand pipeline is intact. Its RERA protection is in place. What has changed is the market-level backdrop against which the sector must trade — and that backdrop, on Thursday, is the most volatile it has been in two weeks.

How Realty Stocks Are Opening

The Sensex’s 600-point early trade fall and the Nifty’s gap-down open below 23,300 are the market-level pressures that are pulling realty stocks lower at Thursday’s open, entirely independent of any sector-specific development.

The Nifty Realty index, which had recovered to approximately 835-845 through Wednesday’s second consecutive positive session, opens Thursday under selling pressure that is macro and market-level in origin. The sector had been building momentum — Wednesday’s recovery following Tuesday’s consolidation following Monday’s six-week losing streak ending. Thursday’s gap-down has interrupted that momentum before it could build into a sustained trend.

DLF, the index’s largest constituent at a 26.86% weight, opens Thursday with profit-booking pressure from investors who had entered on Monday’s bargain-buying session. The stock at approximately ₹635-645 — still 15-17% below analyst targets of ₹775 — faces the mechanical selling that follows any strong two-session recovery when the broader market gaps down sharply the following session. The fundamental case for DLF remains intact: Gurugram project pipeline, festive season launch readiness, and the catch-up trade argument that has been the sector’s most discussed institutional positioning story through the entire CY26 correction.

Godrej Properties opens Thursday under pressure from the broader market’s Bajaj Finance-led financial sector selldown. Bajaj Finance falling up to 6% on Thursday drags sentiment across the financial ecosystem — including housing finance, which directly impacts developer demand through the home loan channel. While Godrej Properties itself has no direct Bajaj Finance exposure, the sentiment contagion from a 6% fall in one of the Sensex’s most prominent financial names creates a negative backdrop for rate-sensitive sectors broadly.

Lodha Developers, Prestige Estates Projects, Sobha, Phoenix Mills, Brigade Enterprises, Anant Raj, Aditya Birla Real Estate, and Oberoi Realty all open Thursday with a negative bias — tracking the broader market’s 600-point Sensex selldown. The selling is uniform rather than selective, reflecting market-level risk-off positioning rather than any stock-specific or sector-specific development.

The NSE’s debut itself — listing at ₹1,841 on the BSE — is absorbing significant market attention and investor capital through Thursday’s session. Retail investors who had subscribed to the NSE IPO and are now watching their allotted shares trade on the BSE are engaged with that story rather than with secondary market realty names. That attention diversion, while temporary, reduces the participation in secondary market recovery attempts during Thursday’s session.

Bajaj Finance and Bajaj Finserv falling up to 6% are Thursday’s most alarming individual stock developments. Bajaj Finance — which had already been under pressure from the draft RBI revolving credit proposal since early August — appears to be facing fresh selling pressure that is amplifying the broader market’s negative mood. A Bajaj Finance fall of this magnitude on a day when the Sensex is already down 600 points creates the most difficult possible market environment for every rate-sensitive sector.

What Is Working

Crude oil continuing its easing trend — remaining below $100 through Thursday’s session despite the broader market’s risk-off move — is the most important sector-specific positive the market is carrying into an otherwise difficult day. Three sessions of crude below $100, confirmed through Wednesday’s close and Thursday’s open, is beginning to establish a new base for energy market pricing that is materially different from September’s $108 highs. Each day that crude sustains below $100 adds to the credibility of the Saudi shipment recovery narrative and reduces the urgency of the worst-case Q2 FY27 construction cost revision scenarios.

US diplomatic efforts on Iran showing signs of progress — cited as one of the factors supporting Wednesday’s 0.40% Sensex gain — remain a background positive even on a volatile Thursday. The pace of US-Iran diplomatic engagement has been the most important variable for the sector’s macro environment throughout CY26, and any forward movement on the Iran framework — however incremental — keeps the Hormuz resolution thesis alive as the sector’s medium-term re-rating catalyst.

The broader market’s recovery trajectory — two consecutive positive sessions through Monday and Wednesday — remains intact even if Thursday’s gap-down has interrupted the immediate momentum. A market that bounces back from a six-week losing streak does not typically reverse that recovery on the first external shock it encounters. Thursday’s Sensex selldown, while sharp at 600 points in early trade, is being driven by Wall Street’s overnight decline rather than by any fresh domestic fundamental negative.

India VIX at 11.52 — while 11.30% higher than Wednesday’s close — is still well within the historical range that supports institutional risk-taking in rate-sensitive sectors. The volatility spike is alarming as a day-on-day percentage move, but the absolute level of 11.52 is not the kind of extreme fear reading (above 20) that signals systemic market stress. Institutional investors reading VIX at 11.52 are seeing elevated near-term uncertainty — not a signal to exit quality rate-sensitive positions built at six-week correction lows.

What Isn’t Working

Wall Street’s overnight fall is the most direct external trigger for Thursday’s difficult open. The Nasdaq’s 1.13% decline and the S&P 500’s 0.72% drop reflect the same persistent inflation and bond yield concerns that have been the sector’s global macro headwind since Warsh’s Jackson Hole speech. Rising US Treasury bond yields — approaching 5% — are the mechanism through which Fed rate hike fears transmit into emerging market equity pressure. When US 10-year yields rise, global institutional investors reduce emerging market equity exposure, and India’s rate-sensitive sectors — real estate first among them — bear the most concentrated selling.

Bajaj Finance and Bajaj Finserv falling up to 6% is Thursday’s most alarming domestic development for the realty sector’s secondary indicator. Bajaj Finance’s distress — now extending through multiple weeks from the draft RBI revolving credit proposal — is creating a persistent negative sentiment signal for the broader financial sector. A housing finance market where one of the most prominent NBFCs is falling 6% in a single session is a housing finance market that institutional investors are watching with anxiety rather than confidence. That anxiety, even if it does not directly affect home loan availability from banks, reduces the positive sentiment signal that the sector needs from the credit market to sustain recovery momentum.

The NSE listing’s capital and attention absorption — while positive for Indian capital market history — is a near-term negative for secondary market realty names. On a day when the market is already gapping down on Wall Street’s overnight fall, the NSE listing’s excitement is concentrated in the primary market rather than adding to secondary market breadth. That combination creates the thinnest possible secondary market liquidity environment for realty stocks to attempt any recovery against Thursday’s gap-down pressure.

India VIX jumping 11.30% to 11.52 — the sharpest single-session volatility spike in weeks — signals that institutional options buyers are actively purchasing downside protection. When institutions buy puts aggressively, market makers who sell those puts must hedge by selling index futures, which adds mechanical selling pressure to the broader market regardless of fundamental developments. That VIX-driven selling amplification is a structural Thursday headwind that compounds the Wall Street-driven gap-down.

What to Watch Through the Day

The NSE’s listing price trajectory through Thursday’s session is the day’s most watched single event. NSE shares opening at ₹1,841 — 5% above the ₹1,753 issue price upper band — and entering the BSE’s top market-cap list above HUL and Titan is a historic positive for Indian capital markets. Whether NSE shares hold above the issue price through the full session will be the primary market story that dominates financial media coverage on Thursday. Secondary market realty names will trade in the shadow of that story through the morning.

Crude oil’s hold below $100 through Thursday’s session is the sector-specific checkpoint that will determine whether the week’s recovery momentum can survive Wall Street’s overnight shock. Brent sustaining below $100 despite the broader market’s risk-off move and rising US bond yields would confirm that Saudi shipment recovery and US-Iran diplomatic progress are providing a genuine structural supply-side positive that is larger than the demand-destruction signal from Wall Street’s decline.

The Nifty50’s hold of 23,200 — the level below which the six-week recovery’s technical foundation would be questioned — is Thursday’s primary technical checkpoint. India VIX at 11.52 and the Sensex’s 600-point early trade fall have already tested 23,300. A Nifty that closes above 23,300 today would signal that the gap-down open has been absorbed rather than extended. A close below 23,200 would raise questions about whether Monday’s end of the six-week losing streak was the beginning of a genuine recovery or a temporary bounce in a continuing downtrend.

Brigade Enterprises’ Q1 FY27 presales — the sector’s most anticipated remaining undisclosed data point — remain the potential company-specific catalyst that the sector most needs on a macro-volatile Thursday. A strong Brigade presales disclosure arriving on a day when the broader market is under pressure from external factors would be the clearest possible signal that the sector’s fundamental demand story operates independently of Wall Street’s overnight moves. It would give institutional investors the one domestic data point that cuts through the external noise.

Thursday September 24 is not the session the realty sector’s recovery narrative needed at this moment. But it is the session the market has delivered — NSE’s historic listing day arriving simultaneously with Wall Street’s sharp overnight fall, a 600-point Sensex decline, and India VIX’s 11% single-session spike. The sector’s task through Thursday is not to advance but to hold. To demonstrate that two sessions of recovery on genuine macro positives — crude below $100, US-Iran diplomatic progress — cannot be erased by a single night of Wall Street selling and a historic listing that absorbs the day’s attention. By 3:30 PM, the market will know whether the sector held that line or surrendered it.

Also Read: Realty Stocks Open Higher on Friday as Rupee Strengthens and Rate Fears Ease

The post Realty Stocks Open Under Pressure as Wall Street Falls and NSE Listing Steals the Spotlight appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed four connected writ petitions on 18 September 2026 (reserved on 1 September; uploaded 19 September; 2026:BHC-AS:38237) arising from Everard Co-operative Housing Society Ltd at Everard Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Sion. The society has about 230 members. The petitions challenged Co-operative Appellate Court orders dated 28 April 2026 that had restored two disputes to Co-operative Court No. III after the trial court had returned them for filing in the civil court.

The High Court refused to interfere. The disputes stay in the Co-operative Court. The Court also left open the society’s right to separately challenge an interim stay granted by the Co-operative Court on 10 April 2024.

What the members had challenged

Two disputes were filed by members including Francis Colaco, Mathew Sunny and Raymond Nogueira against the society, its then Chairman Anthony Irineus Carneiro, Secretary Hayley Maria Misquitta and others.

Dispute CC/III/449/2024 attacked the agenda notice of 22 August 2022 and Resolution No. 3 of the SGBM held on 28 August 2022. That resolution reconfirmed earlier cancellation of a letter of intent and authorised the managing committee to explore redevelopment options. The members said the Secretary had no authority to convene the meeting, mandatory procedure was ignored, members were not given a proper chance to speak, and the resolution was contrary to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Rules and the bye-laws.

Dispute CC/III/92/2024 was sharper on timing. On 25 January 2024 the Divisional Joint Registrar, in a revision against a Section 89-A inquiry, directed status quo on a prayer that the managing committee not take policy decisions. The next day the committee decided to call an emergency SGBM. On 28 January 2024 the general body authorised three members — including Carneiro and Aron Pinto — to take the redevelopment process ahead and to convene further meetings without approaching an Authorised Officer if one was appointed by the Registrar. A later notice of 19 February 2024 sought to put the managing committee in “complete custodianship” of the bidding and evaluation process.

The members said the 28 January meeting was held in the teeth of the Registrar’s order and that the resolutions tried to bypass Section 79-A directives and usurp the general body’s role.

On 10 April 2024 the Co-operative Court stayed implementation of the 28 January 2024 resolutions and restrained further steps on the February agenda, including redevelopment-related action.

Why the trial court sent the case to the civil court

The society and office-bearers applied for rejection/return of the disputes. Their case was simple: redevelopment does not “touch the business of the society” under Section 91 of the MCS Act. A line of Bombay High Court judgments — including Mohinder Kaur Kochar v. Mayfair Housing, Maya Developers v. Rajkumar L. Nagda, Parimal H. Solanki (Bhoumik CHS) and Komal Arvind Vesavkar — has treated redevelopment of an existing building as different from the society’s original construction activity. On that view, only a civil court can try such disputes.

On 17 February 2025 the Co-operative Court accepted that reading. It held that the real dispute was the redevelopment process, that precedent barred the Co-operative Court, and that the plaints must be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for presentation to the civil court.

What the Appellate Court did

The Co-operative Appellate Court reversed those orders on 28 April 2026. It held that the disputes were between “enumerated persons” under Section 91 — members versus the society and office-bearers — and that the subject matter was the conduct of general meetings and management. It relied on the December 2025 decision in Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. Jitendra Kumar Jani.

The society, Chairman and Secretary then came to the High Court in writ. Interveners Carneiro and Misquitta filed separate petitions. Senior counsel argued that the Appellate Court had read the pleadings formally and missed the “subterfuge”: the members had dressed a redevelopment fight as a meetings case.

What the High Court actually held

Justice Jamadar framed the problem as a choice between two extremes, and rejected both.

First extreme: the moment a resolution mentions redevelopment, the Co-operative Court loses jurisdiction. The Court said that is too broad. Section 91 has a twin test — who the parties are, and what type of dispute it is. Parties here were clearly enumerated persons. The type of challenge, on a meaningful reading of the dispute applications, was to competence to convene, legality of the notice, breach of Rules and bye-laws, and holding a meeting in defiance of a Divisional Joint Registrar status-quo order. That is classic Co-operative Court territory.

Second extreme: members can keep a redevelopment fight in the Co-operative Court forever by attacking only the meeting on technical grounds after a developer is chosen and a Development Agreement is signed. The Court said that is also wrong. Clever drafting that creates an illusion of a meetings dispute, when the real controversy is a concluded redevelopment transaction and third-party rights have intervened, can still be nipped at the threshold.

The deciding facts in this case were stage and nature of relief:

• The challenge was not to the merits of whether the society should redevelop.
• No developer had been finally appointed.
• No Development Agreement had been executed.
• The Co-operative Court had already stayed the impugned resolutions, so there was no immediate risk of conflicting decrees or of a Co-operative Court order becoming meaningless.

Because of that, a declaration on the meetings would still be effective. The Court therefore upheld restoration of both disputes to the Co-operative Court.

How this sits with earlier law

The judgment walks through the Supreme Court ruling in Margret Almeida v. Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society (2012): both the subject matter and the parties must fit Section 91. If either fails, the Co-operative Court cannot try the case.

It accepts the older High Court line that ordinary redevelopment of an ageing building is not, by itself, the “business” of a housing society in the C.F. Marconi / Mohinder Kaur Kochar sense.

It then deals with the 2019 amendment. Chapter XIII-B redefined “housing society” in Section 154B-1(17) to include demolishing existing buildings and reconstructing or using land potential. That can bring reconstruction closer to the society’s object — but Parimal Solanki held that existing bye-laws continue until they are expressly amended (Section 154B-31 saving clause). Whether Everard’s bye-laws now include redevelopment is a mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be decided on a bare reading of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 or Rule 10. That is the same approach taken in Bank of India Staff Panchsheel CHS (19 December 2025).

Baliram Totaram Misal v. Saujanya CHS (27 August 2026), which the society treated as its main authority, was distinguished on facts. In Misal, the society had already selected a PMC and developer and executed a Development Agreement and power of attorney. Members had split the fight: resolutions in the Co-operative Court, DA in the civil court. Following Margret Almeida (especially paragraph 47), the Court there said both challenges must travel together in the civil court. Otherwise one court may uphold the DA while the other strikes down the resolution that authorised it. That anomaly does not arise at Everard because no DA exists yet.

What a Co-operative Court can cover after this order

On the High Court’s reasoning, a Co-operative Court can still try:

• Whether the person who issued the SGBM notice had authority.
• Whether notice period, agenda, quorum and minutes complied with the Act, Rules and bye-laws.
• Whether a meeting was called in breach of a Deputy Registrar / Divisional Joint Registrar interim order (including Section 89-A related status quo).
• Whether a resolution improperly hands the general body’s redevelopment role to a three-member committee or to the managing committee in a manner alleged to violate Section 79-A directives.
• Interim restraints on giving effect to such resolutions, at least while no DA is in place.

Those issues remain “touching the business” of management and meetings under Section 91, even if the agenda heading is “redevelopment”.

Where the Co-operative Court’s reach stops

The order does not say Co-operative Courts can decide redevelopment as a whole.

Once the process has “gained momentum” in the sense used by the Court — developer appointed, Development Agreement and power of attorney executed, third-party rights created — a challenge confined to the enabling resolutions in the Co-operative Court becomes, in the Court’s words, theoretically possible but practically meaningless. The civil court, which alone can set aside or mould relief on the DA, can also examine the validity of the resolutions. Split litigation at that stage is what Margret Almeida and Baliram Misal warn against.

The High Court also did not decide:

• whether the 2022 or 2024 Everard meetings were actually valid;
• whether redevelopment is now an object of this society under its bye-laws;
• who should be the developer;
• any term of a future DA.

Those remain for the Co-operative Court on merits (meetings) or, later, for the civil court (the transaction).

Why the order matters for Mumbai societies

Redevelopment fights in cessed and old co-operative buildings routinely begin as SGBM wars: who signed the notice, whether 79-A process was followed, whether a small group was authorised to “take the process ahead”, whether a Registrar stay was ignored. This judgment tells managing committees they cannot get such disputes thrown out of the Co-operative Court merely by writing “redevelopment” in the agenda — so long as they have not yet locked a developer and a DA.

It also tells dissenting members that the Co-operative Court is not a parallel forum to unwind a signed development deal. After the DA is executed, the safer and cleaner course, on this line of cases, is one civil suit that attacks both the contract and the resolutions that authorised it.

For Everard CHS specifically, the two disputes now go back to Co-operative Court No. III. The April 2024 interim stay stands restored unless separately vacated. The High Court discharged rule and imposed no costs.

Also Read: Co-op Appellate Court: Past Members Can Sue Societies for Refund

The post Co-op Court CAN Hear Redevelopment Matters, Till This Document Is Signed appeared first on Square Feat India.

The proposal, approved by the Maharashtra Cabinet at its meeting on September 22, 2026, envisages the integrated redevelopment of the existing MHADA buildings on a land parcel of approximately 6 acres, or 25,234 sq m, under Regulation 33(5).

The project is aimed at replacing old and deteriorating buildings with safer and more spacious homes for eligible existing residents while also creating improved infrastructure and amenities within the neighbourhood.

234 existing residential tenements to be rehabilitated

At present, the proposed redevelopment comprises 234 residential tenements.

Under the rehabilitation component, eligible existing residents will be provided homes in the redeveloped project, allowing them to continue living in the same established Khar West neighbourhood rather than being displaced from the area permanently.

The proposal is significant because Ramkrishna Nagar is an established MHADA colony in Khar West. MHADA’s own records identify Ramkrishna Nagar as one of its colonies in the western suburbs, while its layout records place the colony within the Bandra registration area.

The area has also been identified in MHADA documentation as part of its Khar cluster of housing colonies.

Around 9,000 sq m housing stock for sale

Apart from rehabilitating existing residents, the redevelopment is expected to create a substantial housing component for MHADA.

According to the proposal, MHADA is expected to receive approximately 9,000 sq m of housing stock for sale to the general public.

This component could add new affordable or comparatively accessible housing supply in Khar West, where availability of developable land is limited and residential values are generally high.

The redevelopment is therefore structured to serve two purposes: rehabilitation of eligible existing residents and creation of additional housing stock that can be offered by MHADA to the wider public.

MHADA also expects premium from the project

The project is also expected to generate premium payable to MHADA towards the construction area.

This provides an additional financial component to the redevelopment proposal while allowing MHADA to leverage the development potential of its land for both rehabilitation and creation of housing stock.

The exact financial value of the premium and the eventual sale mechanism for the approximately 9,000 sq m housing component would depend on the subsequent implementation and approvals of the project.

Why Ramkrishna Nagar is important

Ramkrishna Nagar is not a newly emerging residential location. It is an established MHADA housing colony in Khar West, with a long-standing residential presence.

Municipal records also identify the Ramkrishna Nagar MHB Colony and the Ramkrishna Nagar playground in the area.

The location has also seen redevelopment activity involving individual societies. For instance, Paramhans Cooperative Housing Society, located at Building Nos. 19, 20 and 21 in Ramkrishna Nagar on S.V. Road, has been pursuing redevelopment of its three 1950s-era buildings. Its records state that the buildings are close to Khar railway station and the upcoming Metro Line 2B corridor.

This indicates that redevelopment is already becoming an important part of the transformation of the broader Ramkrishna Nagar neighbourhood.

Existing redevelopment history adds another layer

Ramkrishna Nagar has also seen individual redevelopment projects in the past.

A 2026 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order, for example, refers to the redevelopment of MHADA-owned land at Ramkrishna Nagar involving Building No. 18, known as Sunshine, which was originally constructed for Low Income Group allottees. The order records that the original allottees subsequently formed the Ramkrishna Nagar Sunshine Co-operative Housing Society.

This history is relevant because the newly approved proposal is different in scale: instead of dealing with an isolated building or society, the current proposal envisages an integrated redevelopment of a larger MHADA land parcel and multiple existing structures.

From ageing buildings to a planned residential cluster

The proposed project could therefore represent a shift from building-by-building redevelopment towards a more comprehensive redevelopment model for an established MHADA colony.

For existing residents, the immediate objective is rehabilitation into safer and more spacious homes.

For MHADA, the project provides an opportunity to generate additional housing stock for sale while monetising development potential through the premium component.

For the neighbourhood, the redevelopment could mean newer buildings, improved infrastructure and a more organised residential environment.

The significance of the Cabinet approval is that the project can now move forward within the framework proposed under Regulation 33(5), subject to the necessary subsequent approvals, planning processes and implementation requirements.

What this means for Khar West

Khar West has limited scope for large greenfield residential development because much of the locality is already built up.

Large-scale redevelopment of an existing MHADA colony therefore provides an alternative route for adding housing supply without requiring the creation of an entirely new residential district.

The Ramkrishna Nagar proposal combines rehabilitation, additional public housing stock and redevelopment of ageing structures on an established parcel of land.

With approximately 234 existing residential tenements forming the rehabilitation component and around 9,000 sq m of housing stock expected to become available for sale to the general public, the project could become an important redevelopment initiative in Khar West.

The Cabinet approval of September 22, 2026, thus marks the beginning of the next stage for a project that could significantly change the physical character of Ramkrishna Nagar while retaining the area’s existing residential community.

Also Read: MHADA plans to take back 100’s of its Mumbai plots

The post MHADA To Undertake Cluster Redevelopment of Ramkrishna Nagar in Khar West appeared first on Square Feat India.