A closer look at the official website of MahaRERA has revealed discrepancies that raise troubling questions about the authority’s functioning.

During a routine check of rulings published on the platform, it was observed that multiple orders uploaded in April 2026 were actually passed years earlier, creating confusion for users relying on the website for accurate and timely information.

What the Investigation Found

When this reporter filtered rulings between April 1, 2026 and April 17, 2026, and selected the “Final Order” category, the first page itself showed multiple inconsistencies.

Here are some key examples:

Case 1: VERDE RESIDENCE COLLECTION

• Project Registration Number: P52100004841
• Complainant: Pushpa Krishnagopal Sawhney
• Complaint No: CC005000000011846
• Respondent: M/s Stratford Realty LLP
• Upload Date on Website: April 13, 2026

However, when the order was opened, it was dated December 28, 2018
The order was passed by former MahaRERA member Vijay Satbir Singh, who is no longer associated with the authority

Case 2: KARRM PANCHTATVA – 2

• Project Registration Number: P51700010325
• Complainant: Shalini Kumar
• Complaint No: CC006000000057980
• Respondent: Nishikant Naiksatam
• Upload Date: April 13, 2026

On opening, the order was actually dated September 19, 2019

Case 3: KARUNA Project

• Project Registration Number: P52000011654
• Complainant: Almas Sayed
• Complaint No: CC006000000193319
• Respondent: Mr Parag Thakkar
• Upload Date: April 7, 2026

The actual final order was passed on February 28, 2025

Pattern, Not an Isolated Issue

Out of the first 10 orders listed, most did not match the dates shown on the website.

This suggests a systematic issue, not a one-off error.

For users:

• It becomes difficult to track recent rulings
• It creates confusion about case timelines
• It undermines the credibility of official records

Isn’t RERA Meant to Ensure Transparency?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was introduced with a clear objective:

To bring transparency, accountability, and trust to India’s real estate sector

Under RERA:

• All project details must be publicly accessible
• Orders and rulings must be clearly documented
• Homebuyers should be able to rely on accurate and updated information

Then Why This Lack of Clarity?

The current situation raises uncomfortable questions:

• Why are old orders being uploaded with current dates?
• Is this a case of backend data migration, or something else?
• Why is there no clear mention of original order dates upfront?

For an authority designed to protect homebuyers, such discrepancies can erode confidence.

Impact on Homebuyers and Industry

For homebuyers, especially those actively tracking disputes:

• It becomes harder to identify latest judgments
• It affects legal awareness and decision-making
• It creates doubt about the authenticity of records

For the industry:

• It weakens trust in the regulator
• It raises concerns about data governance and transparency

A Credibility Question for the Regulator

MahaRERA has often been considered one of the more proactive RERA authorities in India.

However, such inconsistencies:
Risk damaging its reputation
Raise questions about internal processes
Highlight the need for better digital transparency practices

Final Take

At a time when the real estate sector is striving for greater transparency, such discrepancies on an official regulatory platform are concerning.

The bigger question remains:
Is this a technical oversight, or something deeper?

Until clarified, this issue risks undermining the very trust that RERA was meant to build.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund with Interest in Serenity Project Case, Dismisses Premature Complaints

The post What Is MahaRERA Up To? Old Orders Uploaded as New Raise Transparency Concerns appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. AT006/000000053725/2022 filed by Nandkishore Harikrishan Altal against Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. and others, holding that the appeal had become infructuous after the allottee took possession of the flat during the pendency of proceedings.

Case background: From delayed possession to refund claim

The dispute relates to a luxury residential project “Marvel Ganga Sangaria” at Mohammadwadi, Pune.
The appellant had purchased Flat No. 301 for a total consideration of ₹3.00 crore under a registered Agreement for Sale dated 4 October 2011, with the promised possession date being 31 December 2013.

While a correction deed was executed in 2014 to rectify a typographical error in the building wing, possession was not handed over by the due date. Aggrieved by the delay, the buyer approached MahaRERA under Section 18, seeking:

• Withdrawal from the project
• Refund of the paid amount with interest and compensation

However, MahaRERA dismissed the complaint in November 2021 on the ground that the complaint was filed against the wrong project registration, as the flat fell in a different registered phase.

What changed during the appeal

While the appeal against MahaRERA’s order was pending before the Appellate Tribunal, a crucial development altered the legal landscape:

• The flat had been mortgaged to Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd.
• Due to loan default, Phoenix ARC took physical possession on 11 November 2021 under the SARFAESI Act
• The appellant later cleared all dues and re-took possession of the flat on 19 July 2023, supported by a possession letter placed on record

Despite having taken possession, the appellant argued that he was no longer interested in the flat and was willing to return it to the promoter in exchange for a full refund with interest.

Why the Tribunal said “no return after possession”

The Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice S. S. Shinde (Chairperson) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member – Administrative), rejected this argument outright.

The Tribunal held that:

1. Section 18 of RERA permits refund only when the allottee chooses to withdraw due to failure to hand over possession.
   Once possession is taken, the right to withdraw comes to an end.
2. RERA does not contain any provision allowing an allottee to return a flat after taking possession and seek a refund of the principal amount.
3. Even though possession was initially taken by the lender under SARFAESI, it arose from the buyer’s own mortgage and default.
   When the appellant cleared the loan and took back possession, the law treated it as acceptance of possession by the allottee.
4. Having taken possession, the promoter’s primary contractual obligation stood substantially fulfilled, rendering the appeal for refund legally unsustainable.

On these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal had lost its purpose and therefore dismissed it as infructuous.

What relief, if any, still survives

While shutting the door on refund, the Tribunal clarified that the buyer is not left remediless. If aggrieved by delayed possession, the allottee may still:

• Approach MahaRERA separately for interest on delayed possession
• Seek compensation, if legally justified

However, refund and project exit are no longer available remedies once possession is taken.

Why this ruling matters for homebuyers

The order reinforces a critical principle under RERA:
Possession is the legal point of no return.

RERA is designed to ensure timely delivery and accountability—not to function as a post-possession exit or buy-back mechanism. Change of mind, financial stress, or loss of investment appetite cannot be grounds for refund once possession is accepted.

For homebuyers, the message is clear:
Decisions on exit must be taken before possession—after that, RERA’s “no return policy” applies.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post RERA’s “No Return Policy”: Once You Take Possession, There’s No Going Back appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal’s decision, delivered on 8 January 2026, stems from a dispute where the developer had purported to terminate the agreement for sale, alleging persistent payment defaults by the buyer. However, the buyer had already paid 95% of the total consideration, and the Tribunal held that non-payment of a part of the price cannot justify cancellation of a registered agreement under the law.

Supreme Court Principles Applied

In its reasoning, the Tribunal relied on established Supreme Court principles showing that the essence of a sale is the transfer of ownership, and cancellation cannot be justified merely on payment issues. As per Supreme Court precedents cited in the order:

• Actual payment of the whole price is not necessary for the completion of a sale once ownership transfer is intended and registered.
• Even if part of the sale consideration remains unpaid, cancellation is not an automatic legal remedy for the developer.
• The correct remedy for unpaid dues would be for the developer to seek legal recovery of the balance amount, not to rescind the sale agreement.

This legal interpretation reinforces the protection of homebuyers who have entered into registered agreements and paid substantial consideration, even if some payment delays have occurred.

Occupation Certificate and Possession Dispute

The dispute also involved disagreement over whether the subject flat was covered by a valid occupation certificate (OC). MahaRERA, in its impugned order, had classified the buyer’s complaint as premature because the flat allegedly was not covered under the part OC obtained by the developer.

However, the Tribunal emphasized that in cases where an OC is disputed, the developer cannot use this as a basis to deny possession and then unilaterally cancel the agreement for sale.

Balance of Convenience Favors Homebuyer

Given that the buyer had already paid nearly the full consideration for the flat (95%), the Tribunal found that the balance of convenience lies with the buyer. It reasoned that if the developer was permitted to sell the flat to a third party, the buyer would suffer irreparable harm — a loss that could not be adequately compensated solely in monetary terms.

As a result, the Tribunal:

• Stayed the operation and execution of MahaRERA’s order dated 2 June 2023
• Directed the promoter to not create any third-party rights in the flat
• Ordered both parties to maintain status quo until the appeal is finally heard

The statute and observations made are prima facie and will be fully adjudicated at final hearing.

Legal Implications for India’s Real Estate Sector

Lawyers and industry experts are calling the order a major legal validation for homebuyers who often face threats of termination from developers on the basis of alleged payment defaults.

This ruling sends a strong message that:

• Developers must adhere to legal remedies for recovery
• They cannot use payment delays as a unilateral justification for cancellation
• Registered sale agreements enjoy strong legal protection

Analysts believe this judgment may set a powerful precedent in RERA disputes across India, particularly for those involving delayed possession, OC disputes, and payment issues.

Also Read: Homebuyer To Pay Interest For Delayed Payment

The post Developers Cannot Cancel Sale Agreements Just for Payment Delays — Key Win for Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling with wide implications for India’s real estate market, the Supreme Court has clarified that builders and property sellers cannot forfeit earnest money if they themselves are in breach of the agreement, even if the homebuyer has also defaulted. The judgment provides crucial guidance on how courts will balance equities when both parties fail to honour contractual obligations.

The ruling came in Subhash Aggarwal vs. Mahender Pal Chhabra & Anr., a long-running property dispute that traces its origins back to 2008 and highlights the legal risks associated with delayed payments, incomplete documentation, and prolonged litigation.

The Deal That Went Wrong

The dispute revolved around an agreement to sell a 300-square-yard residential property in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, for a total consideration of ₹6.11 crore. At the time of execution of the agreement in January 2008, the buyer paid ₹60 lakh as earnest money, followed by an additional ₹30 lakh a few months later.

While the seller acknowledged receiving ₹90 lakh, the transaction failed to close by the agreed date in May 2008.

The buyer approached the court seeking specific performance, asking the seller to be compelled to complete the sale. The seller, on the other hand, argued that the buyer lacked the financial capacity to pay the remaining ₹5.21 crore and had failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar on the due date.

Fault on Both Sides

As the case moved through the courts, a critical fact emerged: neither party had fully complied with the agreement.

• The buyer failed to prove readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount.
• The seller failed to complete essential legal formalities, including mutation of the property and conversion from leasehold to freehold.

After nearly 17 years of litigation, the Supreme Court held that forcing the sale at this stage would be inequitable, especially given the long passage of time and the failures on both sides.

The Big Question: What Happens to the Earnest Money?

This is where the judgment becomes particularly important for homebuyers.

The Delhi High Court had earlier allowed the seller to forfeit the ₹60 lakh earnest money, while directing refund of the remaining ₹30 lakh with interest. The Supreme Court overturned this approach, holding that forfeiture of earnest money would amount to unjust enrichment when the seller is also at fault.

The Court emphasised that:

• Earnest money can be forfeited only when the buyer alone is in breach, and
• A defaulting seller cannot profit from the buyer’s default.

Equitable Solution Instead of Forfeiture

Rather than ordering a mechanical refund with interest calculations spanning nearly two decades, the Supreme Court adopted an equitable approach.

To bring finality to the dispute, the Court directed the seller to pay the buyer a lump sum compensation of ₹3 crore, effectively restoring the buyer while allowing the seller to retain the property.

This approach balanced:

• The buyer’s long-blocked funds and lost opportunity, and
• The seller’s right not to be forced into a stale transaction.

What This Means for Homebuyers

The judgment sends a clear message:

• Earnest money is not automatically forfeitable
• Sellers must strictly comply with legal and contractual obligations
• Courts will intervene to prevent unfair windfalls

Homebuyers must still demonstrate readiness and financial capability, but they are not without protection if the seller has also defaulted.

Key Takeaways for Buyers and Sellers

• Earnest money forfeiture is not a penalty clause, but an equitable remedy
• If both parties are at fault, courts may deny forfeiture altogether
• Long delays and incomplete compliance weaken claims on both sides
• Equity, not technicality, will guide final relief

A Cautionary Tale for Real Estate Transactions

This ruling underscores the importance of document compliance, financial preparedness, and timely execution in property deals. It also reassures homebuyers that courts will not permit sellers to unjustly enrich themselves by holding both the property and the buyer’s money.

For India’s evolving real estate market, the message is clear: contracts bind both sides equally—and fairness will prevail where both fail.

Also Read: No provision in RERA to forfeit earnest money

The post Earnest Money Can’t Be Forfeited If Both Buyer and Seller Are at Fault, Rules Supreme Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

While two complaints were dismissed, MahaRERA allowed 15 complaints, directing the developer to pay interest for delayed possession and to hand over flats along with the Occupancy Certificate (OC), where applicable.

The order was passed by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik on December 26, 2025, following a common hearing of 17 connected complaints.

Background of the Case

The complaints were filed by 17 individual homebuyers against M/s Reliable Builders & Developers, along with its directors and associate firms including Orchid Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., in respect of the project Gulraj Trinity (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800005013).

As per the MahaRERA portal, the project was originally scheduled for completion by July 31, 2019, later revised to June 30, 2021, and further extended to December 31, 2025. Despite multiple extensions, the project has not received its Occupancy Certificate till date.

What Homebuyers Alleged

Homebuyers who had executed registered Agreements for Sale alleged that:

• Possession was contractually due on or before December 31, 2020
• Substantial consideration amounts were paid
• Several buyers were servicing home loans and pre-EMIs
• Construction remained stalled or severely delayed
• Extensions were uploaded on the MahaRERA portal without buyer consent

Some buyers also alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, 18 and 19 of RERA, including lack of transparency and unilateral changes.

Developer’s Defence

The developer argued that:

• Delays were caused by force majeure events, including a stop-work notice by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued in August 2022
• COVID-19 disruptions and labour shortages affected construction
• MahaRERA’s COVID-related statutory moratorium extensions applied to the project
• Certain buyers were in payment default, disentitling them from relief

Two Complaints Dismissed at Booking Stage

MahaRERA dismissed complaints at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2, noting that:

• Both buyers had booked flats at the Expression of Interest (EOI) stage
• No registered Agreement for Sale was executed
• The complainants themselves sought cancellation or failed to adhere to payment schedules
• Forfeiture of booking amounts was in accordance with EOI terms

The Authority held that no illegality or arbitrariness could be attributed to the developer in these cases.

MahaRERA Allows 15 Complaints, Finds Developer in Default

For the remaining 15 complaints, MahaRERA found that:

• Valid registered Agreements for Sale existed
• Possession timelines had lapsed
• The project still lacked an Occupancy Certificate
• The developer failed to justify delays beyond limited statutory moratorium periods

The Authority ruled that unilateral extensions on the MahaRERA portal cannot override contractual and statutory rights of allottees.

Interest for Delayed Possession Ordered

MahaRERA directed the developer to pay interest for delayed possession to eligible homebuyers:

• Interest to be calculated from January 1, 2021 (or the contractual possession date)
• Payable till actual handover of possession with Occupancy Certificate
• At the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of Maharashtra RERA Rules (SBI MCLR + 2%)

Interest arrears are to be adjusted against any outstanding dues, with the balance payable in one instalment.

Direction to Hand Over Possession

In one case, MahaRERA issued a specific direction to immediately hand over possession of the flat along with OC.

For other complainants, possession is to be handed over upon completion, subject to payment adjustments.

Compensation Claims Kept Open

MahaRERA clarified that:

• Certain homebuyers are at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer
• This is limited to quantification of compensation under Section 71 of RERA
• No compensation was quantified in the present order

Key Takeaway for Homebuyers

The order reiterates a settled RERA principle:

Promoters cannot indefinitely delay possession by repeatedly extending timelines on the MahaRERA portal. Where possession is delayed beyond the contractual date, allottees are entitled to interest under Section 18 of RERA.

Why This Order Matters

• Reinforces buyer protection in delayed real estate projects
• Clarifies limits of force majeure and statutory extensions
• Affirms that registered agreements prevail over portal updates
• Provides relief to multiple buyers in a single consolidated order

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post MahaRERA Orders Interest for Delay in Gulraj Trinity Project, Allows 15 Homebuyer Complaints appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a final order passed by Chairperson Manoj Saunik, MahaRERA has directed Swayam Developers and associated respondents to refund amounts with interest, hand over possession with Occupancy Certificate (OC), and not create third-party rights over flats that have been partially paid for.

The project, registered under P51700013349, was originally scheduled for completion on December 31, 2018, with an extended deadline of December 30, 2022. However, the developer failed to obtain the OC and did not apply for further extension, rendering the project lapsed under RERA norms.

Complaint-Wise Outcomes:

• Dilip Bafna, who had paid ₹14 lakh for Flat 204, was granted a refund with interest from January 1, 2019, as he chose to withdraw from the project. MahaRERA also allowed him to separately approach the Adjudicating Officer for compensation.
• Ramesh Maurya, whose flat was allegedly leased out by the builder without consent, had his complaint dismissed on procedural grounds. His earlier 2018 case regarding delayed possession had already been settled via consent terms.
• Natwar Parmar, who had paid over 60% of the flat’s cost, was granted possession of Flat No. 101, along with instructions to the builder to execute the agreement for sale and not create third-party interests.

Promoter Absent, Regulatory Breaches Noted

MahaRERA observed that the promoter had remained absent for three consecutive hearings, failed to update project status on the portal since 2019, and accepted over 10% payment from buyers without executing sale agreements — a direct violation of Section 13 of the RERA Act.

The Authority has also denied the promoter the benefit of the COVID-19-related moratorium period, citing clear inaction and non-compliance.

The order directs the promoter to:

• Refund amounts with applicable interest within 60 days
• Apply for project extension within 30 days
• Update project status and submit quarterly progress reports, failing which penalties under Section 63 will apply

Legal Significance

This case reiterates MahaRERA’s approach toward buyer-centric enforcement, especially in projects where developers have failed to obtain OC or execute agreements despite receiving substantial payments. It also underscores the risks of non-compliance with mandatory RERA obligations — including promoter absence during proceedings.

Also Read: MahaRERA Redefines Criteria for SROs to Benefit Developers Outside MMR

The post MahaRERA Orders Refund, Possession in Lapsed Bhayandar Project; Promoter Absent from Proceedings appeared first on Square Feat India.