In a detailed common judgment dated 27 April 2026, Member (J) Shri Shriram R. Jagtap and Member (A) Dr. Rajagopal Devara dismissed all 40 appeals filed by CCI Projects and upheld the MahaRERA orders directing the promoter to pay delayed possession interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016. The Tribunal also slapped a cost of ₹5,000 on the builder for each allottee.

What Was the Fight About?

The “Wintergreen” project (a phase of the larger Rivali Park layout on the Western Express Highway) promised possession on dates ranging from 2015 to 2019. Homebuyers paid huge sums — from ₹66 lakh to over ₹2.69 crore per flat — but the promoter repeatedly failed to deliver.

Instead of handing over flats, CCI Projects sent letters unilaterally extending possession dates citing “mitigating circumstances” like:

• Changes in Development Control Regulations (DCR),
• Funding crunch after financier Indiabulls pulled out,
• Sand scarcity,
• Later, the Covid-19 pandemic.

When frustrated buyers approached MahaRERA, the Authority ordered interest on the amounts paid. CCI Projects then filed a whopping 40 appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, hoping to overturn the orders.

Tribunal’s No-Nonsense Verdict: Builder’s Arguments Crushed

The Tribunal systematically demolished every defence raised by the builder:

1. “Buyers Waived Their Rights” (Section 55, Indian Contract Act) The promoter argued that since buyers continued paying instalments and didn’t protest the extension letters, they had “acquiesced” to the delay and waived interest claims. Tribunal’s reply: “Unilateral extension letters have no legal validity.” Agreements for Sale contain mutually agreed dates that cannot be changed by the promoter alone. Mere payment of instalments is simply fulfilling contractual obligations — it does not amount to waiver. The right under Section 18 RERA is indefeasible.
2. Force Majeure Excuses Rejected The Tribunal held that none of the cited reasons (DCR changes, funding crisis, sand shortage, or Covid-19) could save the promoter. Covid-19 broke out in March 2020 — long after most agreed possession dates had already expired. Even the RERA-registered completion date of December 2019 was missed.
3. Arbitration Clause Defence Fails CCI Projects claimed RERA complaints were not maintainable because agreements contained arbitration clauses. Tribunal: Followed the recent Bombay High Court judgment in Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rahul Rajendrakumar Pagariya (Oct 2024) and ruled that RERA jurisdiction is not ousted by arbitration clauses.
4. Possession Letters & Undertakings Don’t Help Builder Some buyers had signed possession letters/undertakings (some without protest) while taking flats. The promoter claimed these were “full and final settlement”. Tribunal: These documents were signed after MahaRERA had already passed money decrees, under the pressure of needing possession. They do not amount to waiver of statutory interest rights, especially without proof of actual payment as required under Order 21 CPC.

Final Order

• All 40 appeals dismissed.
• Promoter directed to pay ₹5,000 cost to each of the 40 allottees.
• MahaRERA orders directing payment of interest upheld in full.

The judgment strongly reinforces that a promoter cannot take advantage of its own delays and that homebuyers’ statutory rights under RERA remain protected irrespective of unilateral extensions or clever legal arguments.

Homebuyers’ lawyers — Adv. Shubham Jadhav, Adv. Aman Shukla, Adv. Yash Chheda, Adv. Aditya Pratap and others — successfully defended the buyers, while CCI Projects was represented by Adv. Naushad Engineer and Adv. Abir Patel.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post Builder vs 40 Homebuyers: Mumbai Tribunal Delivers Epic Smackdown to Promoter in 40-vs-1 RERA War! appeared first on Square Feat India.