The order, pronounced on 9th June 2026 in Appeal No. AT05/00276 of 2026, revolves around Point 14, which has been highlighted by the Tribunal as the core reason for dismissing the promoter’s appeal.

Key Observation in Point 14

The Tribunal explicitly recorded:

“Though the issue of possession was subsequently resolved during the pendency of the complaint, the MahaRERA is required to adjudicate the substantive issue of interest and compensation sought by the complainant under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016. … During the reconciliation, the issue of possession was settled. However, there is no discussion or record in the minutes of the conciliation that the complainant has waived off its right to receive interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016 on account of delay in possession. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the contention of the appellant/promoter that the said settlement arrived at before the Conciliation Forum constitutes full and final resolution of the claims relating to both possession and interest is not tenable.”

This clear distinction made in Point 14 is the most important takeaway of this judgment.

Background of the Case

The dispute pertains to the project “The Legend Phase II” (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100025986) at Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune, developed by M/s. Shree Sankalp Associates.

The allottee, Mr. Vishal Jugalkishor Pallod (proprietor of marketing firm Sun Publicity), had entered into an Agreement for Sale on 28.03.2022 with a due date of possession of 30.06.2024. He had initially paid ₹15 lakh (partly in lieu of marketing services provided to the promoter).

The promoter obtained the Occupation Certificate on 21.10.2024 and handed over possession on 23.10.2024 only after the allottee paid the balance ₹25 lakh during conciliation proceedings before MahaRERA.

The allottee had filed the complaint in July 2024 seeking possession along with delay interest. While possession was resolved through settlement, the claim for interest remained alive because no explicit waiver was recorded.

Tribunal’s Final Decision

• The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the promoter’s appeal.
• Upheld MahaRERA’s order granting delay interest.
• Clarified that interest is payable only on the ₹15 lakh paid by the allottee before filing the complaint.
• Interest Period: From 01.07.2024 to 23.10.2024 at SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate + 2%.
• Promoter directed to pay the amount within 30 days, failing which further interest shall accrue.

Important Implications for Homebuyers & Promoters

This judgment strengthens the position of homebuyers significantly. It makes it clear that:

1. Mere settlement on possession and balance payment during RERA conciliation does not amount to a full and final settlement of all claims.
2. For the promoter to escape liability of delay interest, there must be an express waiver of the right to interest recorded in the conciliation minutes or settlement document.
3. The statutory right to interest under Section 18 of RERA is an unconditional and indefeasible right of the allottee (relying on the Supreme Court’s Newtech Promoters judgment).

For Homebuyers: Even after taking possession through settlement, you can still pursue delay interest if you have not explicitly waived it.

For Promoters: Always ensure that any settlement deed or conciliation agreement clearly records the waiver of interest and compensation claims to avoid future litigation.

Also Read: MahaRERA floats paper on quality of construction

The post Settlement on Possession & Payment Does NOT Waive Homebuyer’s Right to Interest on Delayed Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case pertains to Unit No. 3502 on the 35th floor of Tower C in Omkar 1973, Worli. Here is the complete chronological sequence of events:

• March 2015 – April 2016: The Mehta family (Mr Mahendra Mehta, Mr Vikram Mehta and Mrs Hinal Mehta) applied for and received a Letter of Allotment dated 26 April 2016 for the flat. They paid ₹7.33 crore as advance consideration plus ₹35.41 lakh towards TDS, Service Tax and VAT — a total of ₹7.69 crore. The allotment letter promised possession on or before 30 June 2019, extendable latest to 30 June 2020.
• 2018: Construction of Tower C came to a complete standstill after multiple Bombay High Court orders restrained the developer from carrying out further construction and creating any third-party interest on the top floors. On 1 August 2018, the Mehtas issued a legal notice demanding full refund with 14% interest and cancellation of the allotment.
• 2021: With no response or refund from the developer, the family approached MahaRERA by filing Complaint No. CC009000000195169 of 2021.
• 19 December 2022: MahaRERA Member-I directed Omkar Realtors to refund the amount paid. However, the Authority allowed the builder to deduct 2% of the total consideration (as per MahaRERA Order No. 35 of 2022) and crucially denied any interest on the refunded sum.
• 2023: Aggrieved by the absence of interest and the 2% deduction, the Mehta family filed Appeal No. AT006000000144304 of 2023 before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
• 23 March 2026: The appeal was heard through video conferencing.
• 8 April 2026: In a detailed judgment authored by Member (A) Dr Rajagopal Devara (and concurred by Member (J) Shriram R. Jagtap), the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that under Sections 18(1)(a) and 19(4) of the RERA Act, the allottees have an “unqualified right” to full refund along with interest when the promoter fails to deliver possession. The Tribunal ruled that the delay was solely attributable to the builder and court orders, not the homebuyers. It set aside the 2% deduction and the denial of interest.

The Tribunal modified the MahaRERA order and directed Omkar Realtors to refund the full ₹7.69 crore along with interest at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment till actual realisation. Parties are to bear their own costs.

Advocate Akash Rebello appeared for the homebuyers, while Advocate Sonali Jain represented the developer.

This order is seen as a strong reinforcement of homebuyer rights under RERA, especially in cases where projects are stalled due to the promoter’s litigation issues.

Also Read: Omkar Sells 9 Flats Worth ₹131 Crore To A Buyer

The post Omkar 1973: Builder Delayed Possession, MahaRERA Denied Interest & Cut 2%; Tribunal Grants Full Refund + Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the judgment on 30 March 2026 in Second Appeal Nos. 121 and 122 of 2026, dismissing the appeals filed by Rare Townships Private Limited against homebuyer Mitul Gada. The Court upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s order permitting the allottee to withdraw the refund amount deposited by the promoter during the pendency of the appeal.

Sequence of Events

• November 2015: Mitul Gada entered into two Agreements for Sale with Rare Townships for Flat Nos. 1503 and 1504 in the “North Sea Heights (A1)” project at Ghatkopar. The promoter promised possession by 31 December 2018. Gada paid ₹98,92,960 for Flat 1504 and ₹69,66,437 for Flat 1503.
• 2018–2020: Possession was not delivered. Construction came to a standstill. Gada filed complaints before MahaRERA seeking refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.
• February 2020: MahaRERA referred the complaints to the Adjudicating Officer.
• March 2021: Adjudicating Officer directed refund with interest and compensation.
• 2021–2025: Promoter challenged the order in writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court directed the promoter to deposit the amounts (totaling over ₹3.26 crore) in Court. The writ petitions were disposed of in April 2025, remanding the matter to MahaRERA with liberty to the Authority to disburse the deposited amounts if found due to the allottee.
• September 2025: MahaRERA directed the promoter to refund the entire amount paid by Gada along with interest at SBI’s highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2% (with COVID moratorium benefit).
• Late 2025: Promoter filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and sought stay on execution. The Tribunal granted stay on further recovery but allowed Gada to withdraw the deposited amounts subject to an undertaking to refund the money with interest if the promoter ultimately succeeds.
• January–March 2026: Aggrieved by the withdrawal permission, the promoter approached the Bombay High Court in second appeals.

Court’s Strong Observations on Homebuyer Vulnerability

Dismissing the appeals, Justice Jamadar observed:

“The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”

The Court noted that over 11 years had passed since the agreements were signed and more than seven years since the promised possession date, yet the project remained incomplete. The allottee continued paying EMIs on home loans while his hard-earned money remained blocked with the promoter.

The judgment clarified that the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA (at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to the allottee) is meant to safeguard the allottee’s interest. However, this does not freeze the money indefinitely. The Appellate Tribunal has discretion to release the deposited amount in deserving cases, especially where long delays and clear default by the promoter are established.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021) but clarified that the pre-deposit provision is not a bar on disbursement during appeal when equities demand it.

Key Takeaways

• Homebuyers’ money paid years ago is not “developer’s money” — it remains the buyer’s legitimate amount plus interest for deprivation.
• Appellate Tribunals can permit withdrawal subject to undertakings, balancing the promoter’s right to appeal with the buyer’s immediate hardship.
• The ruling reinforces RERA’s beneficial intent to protect vulnerable homebuyers from prolonged litigation and financial distress.

The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the interim applications also disposed of. The allottee can now withdraw the deposited refund amount upon furnishing the required undertaking.

Also Read: Refund Allowed — But Not Final: Homebuyers Must Repay If Builder Wins Appeal

The post Homebuyers Are Vulnerable, Developers Not on Equal Footing: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Case of Fali Erach Poncha vs. Theme Infraprojects

The dispute centered on Flat No. 702 in Building A-I of the project “Signature Residency” (MahaRERA Reg. No. P51700008025), located in Thane. The appellant, Mr. Fali Erach Poncha, had purchased the flat from Theme Infraprojects Private Limited (the Respondent) via an agreement dated March 27, 2014.

Mr. Poncha had paid the entire consideration of ₹62,00,000 by June 2013. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to hand over possession on or before March 2017. However, the project remained incomplete years after the deadline.

The Builder’s “Automatic Extension” Trap

When the homebuyer sought a refund due to the delay, the promoter pointed to Clause 12 of their agreement. This clause claimed the promoter was entitled to an “automatic extension” of time if construction was stalled due to reasons like:

• Non-availability of building materials (steel, sand, cement).
• Delay in government approvals or utility connections.
• Court orders or changes in statutory rules.

The builder argued that since the homebuyer had signed the agreement, they had “consented” to wait indefinitely for these reasons. They also cited the COVID-19 pandemic and various court stay orders as force majeure (acts of God).

Tribunal Strikes Down One-Sided Clauses

The Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice S. S. Shinde and Shrikant M. Deshpande, rejected these arguments. The Tribunal’s reasoning provides a vital shield for all homebuyers:

1. RERA Overrides Contracts: The Tribunal noted that RERA is retroactive and applies to all ongoing projects. Contractual terms that contradict the spirit of the Act cannot be used to deprive a consumer of their rights.
2. Strict Definition of Force Majeure: The Tribunal clarified that under Section 6 of RERA, force majeure only includes natural calamities like floods, cyclones, or war. Delays in obtaining NOCs or materials do not count as “acts of God”.
3. Timeline Matters: The builder tried to blame a 2017 High Court stay and the 2020 pandemic for the delay. The Tribunal pointed out that the possession date (March 2017) had already passed before these events occurred, meaning the builder was already in default.
4. No “Indefinite” Waiting: The judgment stated that merely signing an agreement does not mean a buyer has consented to wait forever for a home.

The Rescue: Refund and Interest Ordered

The Tribunal set aside an earlier MahaRERA order that had allowed the builder to delay the refund until the project’s completion. It ruled that Section 18 of RERA gives a homebuyer an unqualified right to a refund “on demand” if the builder fails to give possession on time.

The promoter was directed to:

• Refund the entire principal amount of ₹62,00,000.
• Pay interest at the rate of SBI MCLR + 2% from the date of payment until realization.
• Execute a Deed of Cancellation and assist the buyer in getting a refund for stamp duty and registration charges from government authorities.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Orders Developer to Refund Buyers, Rejects Cancellation Fee

The post Deceptive “Automatic Extension” Clause Fails: MahaRERA Tribunal Rescues Homebuyer from Builder’s Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal’s judgment in a series of appeals filed by allottees against Joy Homecreation Limited highlights the developer’s failure to provide any documentary proof of such consent, a key contention raised by the promoter.

Timeline of Delay and Extensions:

The Core of the Dispute: Consent and Delay

The appellants, including Makarand Vasant Raut, Yogita Makarand Raut, Sanjay Vastimal Jain, Indira Sanjay Jain, Yogesh Jayantilal Jain, and Vinita Y. Baldota, had purchased flats in the “Joys Adinath Tower-II” project. Despite paying substantial amounts towards their flats, the promoter, Joy Homecreation Limited, failed to hand over possession by the dates stipulated in their respective agreements for sale.

The promoter had repeatedly extended the project’s completion date and argued that these extensions were consented to by the complainants, and that delays were also due to “force majeure” events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

MahaRERA’s Initial Stance & Tribunal’s Firm Findings:

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) had partly allowed the original complaints, rejecting the claim for compensation but directing the promoter to pay interest for delayed possession. MahaRERA had noted that for two complaints (serial no. 1 and 2), the possession dates were prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and NCLT proceedings, thus disallowing extensions based on these events for those specific cases. Crucially, MahaRERA also found no documentary proof of allottee consent for extensions.

The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the case, unequivocally supported the allottees on the issue of consent. “The promoter has not submitted any documentary proof on record to show that the complainants have ever given their consent for extension of dates of possession mentioned in the respective agreements for sale,” the Tribunal stated, finding no merit in the promoter’s contention.

Key Findings of the Appellate Tribunal:

• No Allottee Consent for Extension: The Tribunal explicitly stated that the promoter failed to provide any documentary evidence that allottees consented to the extension of possession dates.
• Entitlement to Interest: The appellants are entitled to interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, due to the inordinate delay in handing over possession and obtaining the occupation certificate.
• Grace Period Denied (for Sr. No. 1 & 2): The promoter is not entitled to the six-month grace period granted by MahaRERA for appeals at serial no. 1 and 2, as the agreements for sale for these complaints pre-date the RERA Act, 2016 coming into force. The Tribunal found the grant of such a grace period “without any basis and not sustainable in the eyes of law”.
• Moratorium Period Allowed (for Sr. No. 3): The promoter is entitled to the benefit of the “moratorium period” as mentioned in MahaRERA notifications issued on April 2, 2020, May 18, 2020, and August 6, 2021, but only for the appeal at serial no. 3, where the agreement for sale was executed after the RERA Act came into force and the COVID-19 pandemic occurred prior to the date of possession.
• Immediate Interest Payment: The Tribunal set aside the MahaRERA’s direction that interest amounts would only be paid after obtaining the full occupancy certificate. The promoter is now directed to pay interest on the amounts paid by the allottees at SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% from the revised dates of possession.
• Compensation for Mental Agony: While the appellants sought Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, the Tribunal’s order does not explicitly grant this, focusing on the interest for delayed possession.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to developers regarding their obligations under RERA and the necessity of adhering to agreed-upon timelines, especially when allottee consent for extensions is lacking.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Tribunal Slams Developer: No Proof of Homebuyer Consent for Porject Delays appeared first on Square Feat India.

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.

The post Developer’s Accounts Frozen for Failure to Pay Allottees, Tribunal Rejects Plea to Unfreeze appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case involved an appeal filed by Rani Manohar Nagpal, Manohar Lalchand Nagpal, and Isha Manish Shahani (Appellants) against Mayuresh Jayprakash Raut @Shree Mahalaxmi Reality, Green City (Respondent). The dispute arose from a real estate transaction where the Appellants had booked shops in the Respondent’s “Green City – Marigold” project.  

The Appellants had initially filed a complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) seeking a refund of payments made to the developer. While MahaRERA ruled in their favor, the Appellants then appealed to the Tribunal to pursue additional relief, including interest and compensation.  

The Tribunal’s order directed the developer to refund the balance amount of ₹25,000, along with interest calculated at the rate of the highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2%, as per the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Importantly, the Tribunal explicitly denied the developer’s entitlement to impose any cancellation charges.  

This decision underscores the RERA Act’s role in safeguarding homebuyers’ rights and promoting accountability and transparency within the real estate sector.

Also Read: MahaRERA asks Developers to mediate with Developers of lapsed housing projects

The post MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Orders Developer to Refund Buyers, Rejects Cancellation Fee appeared first on Square Feat India.

The October 2019 order had asked the web portals to register with the authority as real estate agents, the web portals challenged the order stating that they were not facilitating any sale, but merely were providing information via advertisements to the public.

The portals also claimed that they asked people visiting their websites that before making a decision, they should check details of a project from other authorities which even included MahaRERA.

In July 2018, the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat had filed a complaint with MahaRERA stating that the web portals be registered as real estate agents with MahaRERA.

A detailed hearing was conducted and the MahaRERA closed the matter for order/s after conclusion of arguments of all
the parties on February 8, 2019. The web portals in their appeal. pointed out that the common order was announced only on October 3, 2019, after an unexplained inordinate delay of more than six months of time interval from the date of closure of proceedings.

This is the legal point that the Appellate Tribunal held and passed a detailed order on January 6, 2023. In its order the tribunal held that, as per the view held by the Higher Courts, delayed delivery of judgment is held to be denial of justice making the order delivered after a period of 6 months, unsustainable even without examining the merits and demerits of the order.

The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal read, “In this case, the fact that the order in the instant Appeals is passed after more than 6 months of closing the arguments of the parties and reserving the same for order. We, therefore find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the Appellants herein and cannot accept the contentions of the MGP in view of the categorical view held on the issue by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra). In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the impugned order cannot be sustained.”

After which the tribunal remanded the matter back to MahaRERA to hear and decide afresh by giving sufficient opportunity to the concerned parties.

Also Read: MahaRERA tells developers to inform all Company details where they are associated

The post MahaRERA to hear Real Estate Web Portals Matter afresh appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

Yes heard it right, a developer was held liable by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) for the promise made by its channel partner to the home buyer.

The case is that of Rekha Navani a home buyer who booked a flat in Lawns and Beyond Phase 2, Omkar International District located at Andheri for a total consideration of Rs 1.36 crore.

While booking the flat at an exhibition, the channel partner of developer allegedly promised that in case she is found ineligible for housing loan, the amount paid will be refunded. 

At the time of booking she paid Rs 1 lakh towards expression of interest (EOI) and Rs 6.95 lakh towards application fees. A Letter of Allotment was executed on December 5, 2017 following which a demand notice was also issued to Navani by developer to pay further amount as agreed.

However, as Navani could not procure loan from banks, she requested the developer to cancel the flat and refund the amount she paid. The developer returned Rs 1 lakh only and forfeited Rs 6.95 lakh.

Post which the home buyer approached MahaRERA where the matter was disposed off, the buyer then appealed to the appellate tribunal.

At the appellate tribunal, the developer’s advocate pointed out clauses from application form filled by home buyer. He stated, in the event of withdrawal/cancellation of booking or non-payment of balance application fees, the amount of application fees paid shall be forfeited. 

Further the counsel stated that in case of termination of allotment due to fault of buyer, builder is entitled to recover/forfeit amount equivalent to 10% of the total consideration of flat. 

The counsel stated “Accordingly, on account of cancellation of booking by Appellant, the builder was though entitled to actually recover Rs 13.6 lakh (10% of the total price) yet as against the said amount, only Rs 6.95 lakh have been forfeited as only that much amount was paid so far by the buyer.”

Further about the promise made by the channel partner to the buyer, the counsel for the developer stated, that the email sent by the channel partner was addressed to homebuyer and not the builder and hence has no relevance.

The appellate tribunal held, “The fact that channel partner was appointed by Respondent (developer) for booking the flat has not been categorically denied by Respondent. Therefore, Respondent cannot brush aside its liability arising out of the said promise.”

The tribunal further said, “Iin view of the obligation of Respondent to honour the commitment made by its channel partner on its behalf, the forfeiture of amount paid by appellant (home buyer) is erroneous and against the object and purpose of the Act which is enacted as a beneficial legislation to abate hardships of flat purchasers’.”

Finally the developer was directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 6.95 lakh to the buyer, on or before August 31, 2020 failing which an interest @ 2% above SBI’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate shall be payable w,e.f. September 1, 2020 till realisation of the amount.

Also Read: TATA housing directed to refund money to homebuyer

The post Developer liable for promise made by Channel Partner appeared first on Square Feat India.