"Justice Over Technicalities": Tribunal Condones Delay, Admits Ruparel Ariana Buyers’ Appeal

“Justice Over Technicalities”: Tribunal Condones Delay, Admits Ruparel Ariana Buyers’ Appeal

In a major relief for Ruparel Ariana homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal condoned a 394-day delay in filing their appeal, emphasizing that “substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations.” The Tribunal admitted the plea on condition that the buyers pay ₹25,000 to the developer, citing their good faith in pursuing earlier remedies without mala fide intent.

2 minute read

Homebuyers spared dismissal despite 394-day delay; Tribunal cites good faith and lack of malice

In a significant ruling favouring homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has declared that “substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations”, as it condoned a 394-day delay in an appeal filed by buyers of flats in the Ruparel Ariana project at Parel.

The applicants, Mahrukh Khushrow Patel and others, had challenged MahaRERA’s order rejecting their refund claims. The Tribunal found their delay justified because they pursued a review application in good faith, and there was no evidence of “deliberate or mala fide conduct.”

What the Tribunal Noted

In its detailed order, the Tribunal remarked:

“Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late… Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold.”

The Tribunal further emphasized that:

“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.”

Case Background

The buyers had booked flats with Shree Sukhakarta Developer Pvt Ltd.
MahaRERA rejected their refund claim on 27 July 2023, though it permitted withdrawal under the sale agreement.
After receiving a copy of the order belatedly in August 2023, the buyers filed a review application, which was dismissed in June 2024.
The final appeal was filed on 31 October 2024, leading the builder to argue the delay was excessive and “forum shopping.”

Tribunal’s Decision

While acknowledging the appeal was late, the Tribunal ruled that:

The 265 days spent pursuing the review should be excluded.
The effective delay was 129 days, not 394.
The buyers had acted without malice or gross negligence.
A ₹25,000 cost would be imposed as a condition for condoning the delay.

“There is no material on record to show that the applicant has malafidely preferred the captioned appeal after expiry of the period of limitation,” the Tribunal observed.

Implications

The decision underscores that courts can and will adopt a liberal approach to delays, especially where litigants have pursued available remedies in good faith and without intent to abuse process.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute