The order was passed on August 10, 2026 by Member Ravindra Deshpande in Review Application No. CC006000000221101/APPL/RV/2 arising out of Complaint No. CC006000000221101.

Background of the Case

Mr Vaibhav Kishor Ambukar and Mrs Seema Vaibhav Ambukar had booked Flat No. 1503 in Tower-1, Wing-B of the “Lodha Mulund Project Tower I” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800031360) for a total consideration of Rs 2,26,93,597. They paid Rs 1,00,000 on September 26, 2021 and Rs 6,00,000 on October 10, 2021 towards booking. Out of the first instalment, Rs 35,000 was towards GST. Thus, the developer received Rs 6,65,000.

According to the buyers, after returning to India they executed the Application Form. Their housing loan was later rejected due to uncertainty in Mr Ambukar’s contractual employment abroad. By email dated November 27, 2021, they sought cancellation of the booking and refund of the amount paid.

Lodha refused the refund, relying on Clause 3.5 of the Application Form which provided for forfeiture of the booking amount in case of cancellation. The buyers then approached MahaRERA in May 2022 seeking refund with interest.

On June 10, 2025, MahaRERA allowed the complaint and directed the developer to refund the amounts paid by the complainants.

Lodha’s Arguments in Review

Aggrieved by the refund order, Macrotech Developers filed the present review application. The company contended that:

• The Application Form was actually executed on November 7, 2021 and not on November 18, 2021 as recorded in the original order. The later date was merely an internal CRM entry.
• The buyers had voluntarily cancelled the booking due to their personal financial constraints and loan rejection. There was no default on the part of the developer.
• Despite offering a flexible payment schedule and an option to downgrade the unit, the buyers insisted on cancellation.
• Clause 3.5 of the Application Form clearly provided for forfeiture. The developer had suffered financial loss on account of administrative expenses, marketing costs, brokerage and opportunity loss, as the flat remained unsold until July 2023.
• The original order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. It neither recorded any violation of the RERA Act warranting refund nor assigned reasons for disregarding the contractual forfeiture clause. It also wrongly applied MahaRERA Order No. 35 of 2022 retrospectively and ignored binding precedents.

Lodha sought quashing of the June 10, 2025 order, stay of its operation, and other consequential reliefs.

Homebuyers’ Stand

The original complainants strongly opposed the review. They submitted that:

• The review application was filed only to evade compliance with the refund order and to delay its execution after non-compliance proceedings had commenced.
• The application was barred by limitation under Regulation 36 of the MahaRERA (General) Regulations. It was filed much beyond the prescribed 45-day period without any application for condonation of delay.
• Review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It can be exercised only in cases of error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence. Lodha had neither pointed out any such error nor produced any new material. It was merely re-agitating the same submissions already considered and rejected.
• The Authority had already held that the Application Form was executed after receipt of the booking amount, was not properly explained to the buyers, contained one-sided and unconscionable clauses, and that several pages lacked signatures. No Agreement for Sale was ever executed.
• The cancellation was sought within nine days of signing the form due to genuine financial hardship arising from loan rejection. The amount paid constituted only about 2.93% of the total consideration. Lodha had failed to produce any documentary evidence of actual financial loss.
• The review was a disguised appeal and an abuse of process.

MahaRERA’s Findings and Order

After hearing both sides on April 21, 2026, Member Ravindra Deshpande reserved the matter and delivered the order on August 10, 2026.

The Authority first examined the limitation issue. The original order was passed on June 10, 2025. Although the developer claimed to have paid the challan, the hard copy of the review application was received by MahaRERA only on August 26, 2025 and the online filing was done on February 5, 2026. No application seeking condonation of delay was filed, nor was any sufficient cause shown. The Authority held that mere payment of challan cannot be treated as filing within the prescribed period. The review application was therefore barred by limitation and liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

Even on merits, the Authority found no error apparent on the face of the record. It noted that the Application Form itself contained two conflicting handwritten dates (07.11.2021 and 18.11.2021). The receipts annexed with the form, however, bore the dates 18.11.2021 and 19.11.2021. Extending the benefit of doubt, the Authority upheld the original finding that the form was executed on 18.11.2021.

The Authority further observed that all the grounds raised by Lodha — including the validity of Clause 3.5, alleged financial loss, judicial precedents and applicability of Order No. 35 of 2022 — had already been specifically raised and duly considered in the detailed order dated June 10, 2025. In that order, MahaRERA had held the forfeiture clause to be one-sided, unconscionable and unenforceable, noted the prompt cancellation due to genuine hardship, and recorded the absence of any proof of actual loss suffered by the developer.

Reiterating the settled legal position, the Authority held that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. A party cannot seek re-appreciation of the same evidence or reconsideration of findings already recorded under the guise of review.

Final Order

1. The Review Application No. CC006000000221101/APPL/RV/2 stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.

The original refund direction dated June 10, 2025 therefore continues to hold the field.

This decision once again underlines MahaRERA’s consistent approach that one-sided forfeiture clauses in booking application forms, especially when the amount paid is a small percentage of the total consideration and cancellation is sought promptly for genuine reasons, will not be enforced to the detriment of homebuyers.

Also Read: Lodha Brothers Resolve Disputes, Clarify Brand Ownership

The post Builder’s Review Dismissed: MahaRERA Upholds Refund to Mulund Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.