Saumitrakumar Saha and Deepa Dutta had booked two flats (No. 901 and 902) in Tower 2 (Rohin Wing B) of the project registered under MahaRERA No. P51800014021. They claimed that Ruchita Dhaiya, an employee of Horizon Proptech Pvt. Ltd., misrepresented herself as a sales executive of the developer and allegedly inflated the price with hidden brokerage components totaling over ₹7 lakh.

The complainants approached MahaRERA under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016, seeking refund of the brokerage amount along with 18% interest and compensation, citing violations of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act (which regulate real estate agents). They pointed out that Horizon Proptech’s registration had lapsed in June 2022.

However, in an order pronounced on April 23, 2026, Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. The Authority observed that:

• The real estate agent was not listed as an authorised agent in the project registration details on the MahaRERA portal.
• The complainants failed to upload invoices or documentary proof of the alleged brokerage payments.
• A registered Deed of Cancellation for one flat was already executed in May 2024, after which the complainants ceased to be allottees.
• The dispute essentially pertained to a private financial claim against the agent, which falls outside the specific jurisdiction of MahaRERA in this case.

The Authority clarified that while the homebuyers are free to pursue their claims against Horizon Proptech Pvt. Ltd. and Ruchita Dhaiya before appropriate forums such as Consumer Court or Civil Court, no relief was granted under RERA.

This order highlights the importance of proper documentation and verification of real estate agents before booking properties.

Also Read: Indian Residential Real Estate – Highlights of 2021

The post MahaRERA Rejects Homebuyers’ Brokerage Refund Plea appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background of the MahaRERA Order

The MahaRERA order addressed three complaints (CC006000000580907, CC006000000591319, and CC006000000591602) filed by homebuyers Mohammed Jaffer Imamuddin Sayed, Vinita and Shailendra Kumar Singh, and Abhash Sharma. These allottees, who booked flats in the Indiabulls Park 4 project (MahaRERA Registration No. P52000000475) in Panvel, Raigad, sought remedies for delayed possession and refunds under Section 18 of RERA. The developer, Lucina Land Development Limited, argued that the complaints were not maintainable due to arbitration clauses in the agreements for sale, specifically Clause 45, which mandated dispute resolution through arbitration.

The complaints highlighted significant delays in the project, with possession dates promised between November 2020 and April 2023 (including grace periods) remaining unfulfilled. The developer attributed delays to force majeure events, including a CIDCO stop-work notice (2017–2019), changes in planning authority, and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the arbitration clause issue became a central point of contention, as the developer sought to divert the disputes away from MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.

Bombay High Court’s Ruling: A Game-Changer

MahaRERA’s decision to reject the arbitration clause was grounded in a significant Bombay High Court judgment delivered on October 25, 2024, in Second Appeal No. 434 of 2023. The court held that “the dispute between the individual allottee and the promoter or the dispute between the Association of the Allottees and the Promoter covered under Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 is non-arbitral in nature.” Furthermore, it clarified that “the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under Section 20 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 is not ousted, even if the agreement between the promoter and the allottee contains arbitration clause.”

This ruling effectively dismantled the developer’s argument that MahaRERA lacked jurisdiction due to the arbitration clause. By invoking this precedent, MahaRERA affirmed its authority to adjudicate the complaints, ensuring that homebuyers could seek direct relief under RERA without being compelled to pursue arbitration, which can be costly, time-consuming, and biased toward developers.

MahaRERA’s Stance on Arbitration Clauses

In its order, MahaRERA emphasized that the complainants had consciously chosen to invoke its jurisdiction rather than resorting to arbitration. The authority noted that the homebuyers filed their complaints under Section 31 of RERA, seeking possession, refunds, and interest for delays, as provided under Section 18. By rejecting the developer’s objection, MahaRERA clarified that arbitration clauses in agreements for sale do not override the statutory remedies available under RERA.

This stance aligns with the legislative intent of RERA, which aims to provide a specialized, consumer-friendly forum for resolving real estate disputes. The authority’s reliance on the Bombay High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s support for protecting homebuyers from contractual clauses that could undermine their access to justice.

Implications for Homebuyers

The MahaRERA ruling has far-reaching implications for property investors across Maharashtra and beyond:

• Direct Access to MahaRERA: Homebuyers can now approach MahaRERA without fear of being redirected to arbitration, ensuring faster and more accessible dispute resolution.
• Protection Against Developer Tactics: Arbitration clauses, often embedded in agreements to shield developers, are now ineffective in RERA disputes, leveling the playing field for allottees.
• Clarity on Legal Recourse: The ruling reinforces that RERA is the primary forum for addressing issues like delayed possession, refunds, and interest, empowering homebuyers to seek statutory remedies.
• Encouragement for Due Diligence: Investors are advised to review agreements carefully, recognizing that arbitration clauses cannot bar them from MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.

Broader Impact on the Real Estate Sector

This decision marks a significant shift in the real estate landscape, compelling developers to prioritize compliance with RERA provisions. By invalidating arbitration clauses, MahaRERA and the Bombay High Court have curtailed a common strategy used by developers to delay or complicate dispute resolution. This ruling is likely to:

• Enhance Transparency: Developers may revise agreements to align with RERA’s consumer-centric framework, reducing reliance on arbitration clauses.
• Boost Consumer Confidence: Homebuyers, assured of MahaRERA’s jurisdiction, may feel more secure investing in real estate projects.
• Set a National Precedent: Other state RERA authorities may adopt similar interpretations, creating a uniform approach to handling arbitration clauses in real estate disputes.

Details of the MahaRERA Order

While the arbitration clause ruling was a focal point, MahaRERA also addressed the substantive issues in the complaints:

• Complaints 1 and 2 (Possession with Interest): Mohammed Jaffer and Vinita Singh were granted interest on delayed possession from February 1, 2025, at SBI’s MCLR plus 2%, payable after the project’s Occupancy Certificate is obtained. The developer was directed to set off any outstanding dues against the interest, ensuring no further demands if the interest exceeds dues.
• Complaint 3 (Refund with Interest): Abhash Sharma was awarded a refund of ₹25,87,308 with interest, to be paid in six monthly installments within six months, with a charge on the flat until payment is complete.
• Rejections: Claims for compensation and statutory dues were dismissed, with MahaRERA noting that compensation requires adjudication by a separate officer, and statutory dues are outside RERA’s ambit.

The authority also rejected the developer’s claims of prematurity and force majeure, holding that possession dates in registered agreements are binding unless amended with allottee consent.

Advice for Homebuyers

For property investors, this ruling offers critical lessons:

• Understand RERA Protections: Familiarize yourself with Section 18, which guarantees remedies for delays, and Section 31, which allows complaints to be filed with MahaRERA.
• Scrutinize Agreements: Look for arbitration clauses and recognize that they cannot override your right to approach MahaRERA.
• Act Promptly: File complaints with MahaRERA if developers fail to deliver on time, as delays in possession or project completion are actionable under RERA.
• Seek Legal Guidance: Consult experts to navigate complex agreements and ensure your rights are protected in disputes.

Conclusion

MahaRERA’s November 10, 2025, order, bolstered by the Bombay High Court’s October 25, 2024, ruling, is a decisive victory for homebuyers. By declaring arbitration clauses inapplicable in RERA disputes, the authority has ensured that allottees can seek justice directly through a transparent and accessible forum. This development not only safeguards the interests of homebuyers in the Indiabulls Park 4 project but also sets a robust precedent for the real estate sector. For prospective investors, the message is clear: RERA empowers you to hold developers accountable, and MahaRERA is your ally in securing your rights.

Also Read: MahaRERA Must Allow In-Person Hearings Too, Rules Bombay High CourtVirtual-only model no longer acceptable; hybrid system mandatory within four weeks

The post MahaRERA Rejects Arbitration Clauses in Real Estate Disputes, Upholds Homebuyer Rights appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case stems from a complaint filed by Mr. Mishra against the developer of the ‘Marathon Nexzone Atria-1’ project. On November 11, 2024, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) had directed the builder to pay interest to Mr. Mishra for a significant delay in handing over possession of his flat. The builder was found liable for the period between August 1, 2022, and June 7, 2024.

Sanvo Resorts failed to challenge this order within the statutory 60-day period, filing an appeal with a delay of around 220 days. The developer claimed they were never formally notified of the MahaRERA order and only discovered its existence by chance in August 2025 while checking the authority’s website for an unrelated matter.

The Appellate Tribunal, presided over by Chairperson S. S. Shinde, J., and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, accepted the developer’s explanation. Citing legal principles that favor deciding cases on merit over technical dismissals, the tribunal stated that the delay did not appear to be deliberate or in bad faith. It ruled that “substantial justice deserves to be preferred” and that the builder’s valuable right to appeal should not be defeated on technical grounds.

What This Order Means for Homebuyers

This ruling is a double-edged sword for homebuyers and highlights crucial aspects of the real estate legal process.

• An Immediate Win, But a Continuing Battle: The ₹25,000 awarded to Mr. Mishra is direct compensation for the inconvenience caused by the builder’s delayed legal action. The tribunal has mandated this payment as a “condition precedent,” meaning the builder cannot proceed with the appeal until Mr. Mishra is paid. While this provides some financial justice, it also means the homebuyer’s original victory for interest on delayed possession is no longer final and must be defended again in the appeal.
• The System Can Be Forgiving of Delays: The order demonstrates that legal bodies can adopt a “liberal consideration” towards procedural delays if they believe the cause is sufficient. For homebuyers, this means a builder who misses a deadline isn’t automatically out of the fight, potentially extending legal timelines and uncertainty.
• Persistence is Key: The journey from the original complaint to the final resolution can be long and multi-layered. A win at the RERA level is a significant step, but it can be challenged. This case underscores the need for homebuyers to be prepared for a potentially protracted legal process, including appeals.

Ultimately, while Mr. Mishra has a small, tangible victory in hand, the larger war over compensation for the delayed possession of his home is set to continue.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaints Due to Pre-RERA Contracts,

The post Homebuyer Awarded ₹25,000 as Builder Pays Penalty to Continue Legal Fight appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant and precedent-setting judgment, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has ruled that developers cannot unilaterally change the possession date specified in the original agreement for sale, reinforcing the rights of homebuyers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). This decision, in the case of Nitin and Neha Walavalkar vs. Supreme Construction and Developers, is a major victory for homebuyers and sends a clear message to developers across the state.

The Case: A Fight for Promised Possession

The case, which involved a project in Navi Mumbai, saw the homebuyers facing a significant delay after the promoter failed to hand over possession by the promised date of December 31, 2017. The promoter cited reasons such as delays in obtaining government approvals and non-payment by other allottees, which MahaRERA initially accepted, even extending the possession date to December 31, 2020. However, the homebuyers, rightfully aggrieved, appealed the decision.

A Precedent-Setting Judgment

The MREAT’s ruling overturned this extension, declaring that such a move was “arbitrary” and went against the spirit of the RERA Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the date of possession is a fundamental term of the agreement and cannot be altered without the allottee’s consent. This sets a powerful precedent: promoters cannot use bureaucratic delays or the actions of other buyers as an excuse for their failure to meet contractual obligations.

The Right to Timely Compensation

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a promoter’s liability to pay interest for delayed possession begins from the original date mentioned in the agreement for sale. It rejected the promoter’s argument that the delay was due to “force majeure” and directed the company to pay interest at the State Bank of India’s marginal cost lending rate plus 2% from January 1, 2018, until the actual handover of the flat.

What This Means for the Common Homebuyer

For the common homebuyer, this judgment is a beacon of hope. It establishes that:

1. Your Agreement is Supreme: The original agreement for sale is legally binding, and the possession date within it is a commitment a developer must honor.
2. No Excuses for Delays: Developers cannot use delays in securing government approvals or the financial conduct of other buyers to justify project delays.
3. Interest is Your Right: You are entitled to be compensated for every day of delay, with interest calculated from the original possession date, not from a revised date.

This ruling reinforces that RERA is a powerful tool designed to protect consumers and bring transparency to the real estate sector. It underscores that homebuyers are not passive investors but are instead entitled to timely possession and fair compensation for any delays.

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

The post Possession Dates Are Not Up For Negotiation appeared first on Square Feat India.

The buyers had filed complaints with MahaRERA after the builder failed to deliver possession of their booked flats within the promised timelines. In its earlier order, MahaRERA ruled that the promoter was liable to pay interest for the delay, citing a clear deficiency in service and failure to complete the project as per agreement.

Neelkanth Infracon challenged this ruling before MahaREAT, arguing that the delay was caused by factors beyond their control, including alleged force majeure events. However, the appellate tribunal rejected these arguments, stating that the promoter failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay.

In its judgment, the tribunal affirmed the homebuyers’ right to receive interest for the delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It concluded that the promoter had not only delayed the project but also failed in fulfilling contractual obligations to the allottees.

The tribunal’s order reinforces the importance of accountability in the real estate sector and is expected to serve as a deterrent to other developers who fail to honor delivery commitments.

Background
The “Neelkanth Kingdom” project has faced significant delays, prompting several aggrieved buyers to approach the real estate regulator. With the appellate authority now upholding MahaRERA’s stance, the promoter is expected to comply with the compensation directives without further delay.

Implications
Legal experts believe the decision is a positive development for consumer rights in the real estate sector. “This order sends a strong message that regulatory provisions under RERA are not just symbolic but enforceable,” said a senior property lawyer.

Also Read: MahaRERA fine Builders for printing ads without MahaRERA number

The post Neelkanth Infracon Directed to Compensate Homebuyers for Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

Of the 5,958 total cases, 1,749 have been settled amicably, benefiting 32.36% of homebuyers in a time-bound manner. The success of the Conciliation Forums has led to their establishment in several other states, including Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Telangana, with additional states in discussions to learn from MahaRERA’s initiative.

Initially limited to Mumbai and Pune, the reach of these forums is expanding to include Kalyan, Navi Mumbai, Palghar, Raigad, Vasai, Mira Road, and more. The Mumbai forum has resolved 562 complaints, while Pune has addressed 530. Other forums in Thane, Navi Mumbai, and Palghar have also contributed to the initiative’s success.

At the first hearing, complainants are presented with the option to resolve their issues through the Conciliation Forum, ensuring their rights remain protected. Participation in these forums involves representatives from consumer bodies and self-regulatory organizations, with experienced experts facilitating the discussions. Complainants can also seek legal assistance if desired.

The Conciliation Forums are required to reach decisions within 60 days, or 90 days in exceptional circumstances. Resolutions are only finalized when both the complainant and the respondent agree on the settlement terms. If the terms are not fulfilled, the complainant retains the right to seek further recourse from MahaRERA, which will then hear the case based on its original merits.

MahaRERA Chairman Manoj Saunik stated, “We take every effort to proactively resolve various types of complaints received from homebuyers. During the first hearing of the case, the complainant is provided with the alternative to opt for a resolution through the Conciliation Forum, which is adopted only if both parties agree. If the complainant consents, their grievance can be resolved within 60 days or, in exceptional circumstances, within 90 days. In case of a deadlock, the complainant always has the option to reapproach MahaRERA, ensuring that the rights and merits of the case remain intact. The flexibility provided by the Conciliation Forum has significantly increased its popularity among homebuyers.”

This homebuyer-centric approach continues to enhance the response rate for the Conciliation Forums, particularly among flat purchasers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Temporarily Reverts to Old Website Amid Technical Challenges

The post MahaRERA’s Conciliation Forum Redresses 1,749 Complaints appeared first on Square Feat India.