The complaint (CC/959/2018) was filed by Mr. Amarjit Singh Sethi and Smt. Raminder Kaur Sethi under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The couple had booked two flats in 2014 — Flat No. 002 (Ground Floor, D-Wing, 775 sq.ft.) and Flat No. 101 (1st Floor, D-Wing, 630 sq.ft.) — for a total consideration of ₹35,12,500. An allotment letter was issued on 1 April 2014. The complainants claimed they paid the full amount through cheque, cash and instalments. Unregistered sale agreements were executed on 2 August 2016, and car parking allotment letters were also issued later. Despite this, the builders neither registered the agreements, obtained the Occupation Certificate, nor handed over possession.

The Opposite Parties included Leo Fortune Infra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the partnership firm M/s Saomya Fortune Infra Ventures, Saomya Infra Pvt. Ltd., and several of their directors. The developers raised multiple defences. They claimed the complainants were investors and not consumers, that the complaint was barred by limitation, that full payment had not been received, and that internal partnership disputes and alleged unauthorised cash collections by some directors absolved the other parties of liability. They also pointed to pending criminal cases and undertakings given in criminal proceedings.

The Commission, comprising Presiding Member Ms. Poonam Maharshi and Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, rejected all these contentions in its judgment dated 4 August 2026.

On the question of consumer status, the Commission held that booking two residential flats by a husband and wife for family living requirements does not convert the transaction into a commercial investment. The burden of proving commercial purpose lies on the developer, and the Opposite Parties failed to discharge it. The complainants were held to be bona fide consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

On limitation, the Commission ruled that the complaint was within time. In housing construction cases, the failure to complete the project, obtain Occupation Certificate, execute a registered agreement under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), and hand over peaceful possession constitutes a continuous and recurring cause of action. As long as the builder retains the homebuyer’s money without fulfilling these obligations, limitation does not expire.

On the core issue of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission found the Opposite Parties guilty. Having accepted substantial consideration, they defaulted on their primary statutory duty under Section 4 of MOFA to execute and register formal agreements for sale. They also failed to complete construction, obtain the Occupation Certificate, and deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. The Commission firmly rejected the attempt to hide behind internal partnership disputes, alleged fund misappropriation, or criminal litigation among the directors. It held that internal friction between partners or directors of a joint venture cannot be used as a shield to deprive a genuine homebuyer of their rights. A consumer who has performed their part of the contract cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to corporate irregularities among the developers.

Holding all Opposite Parties (Nos. 1 to 9) jointly and severally liable, the Commission passed the following directions:

1. The Opposite Parties shall execute and register individual Sale Agreements for both Flat No. 002 (775 sq.ft.) and Flat No. 101 (630 sq.ft.), D-Wing, Fortune Belleza, along with the two allotted car parking spaces, in favour of the complainants within one month from the date of the order.
2. The Opposite Parties shall obtain the Occupation Certificate from the competent authority and hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of both flats upon receipt of any balance contractual consideration, if applicable.
3. In the alternative, at the option of the complainants, if the Opposite Parties fail or are unable to hand over legal possession with Occupation Certificate, they shall jointly and severally refund the entire amount of ₹35,12,500 along with interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of payment until realisation.
4. The Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally pay ₹1,00,000 to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment, delay and financial strain.
5. The Opposite Parties shall also pay ₹50,000 towards legal costs.

The order reinforces two important principles for homebuyers in Maharashtra. First, internal disputes among developers or partners cannot be used as an excuse to deny possession or refund. Second, the continuous cause of action doctrine continues to protect buyers in cases of prolonged delay, non-registration of agreements and non-delivery of possession under MOFA.

This judgment is a clear message that once money is accepted from a homebuyer, the responsibility to deliver a completed, legally transferrable flat rests jointly and severally on the company, the partnership firm and the directors involved.

Also Read: Builders Took ₹90 Lakh, Sold Flat to Someone Else — Consumer Commission Orders ₹1.05 Crore Refund

The post Homebuyers Win Big: Commission Orders Flats or 12% Refund + ₹1 Lakh for Mental Harassment appeared first on Square Feat India.

The complaint was filed by Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani against developers Ankur Mayflower Associates and Sahaj Ankur Realtors regarding Flat No. 601 in the project Evergreen Woods, located at Andheri–Kurla Road, Mumbai.

Background of the Dispute

According to the complaint, the buyer received an allotment letter dated 18 February 2016 from the earlier developer for a 476 sq. ft. 1BHK flat with parking priced at ₹75 lakh, with possession promised by June 2018. She paid ₹31 lakh toward the flat — ₹1 lakh by cheque and ₹30 lakh in cash, acknowledged by receipt.

Construction allegedly stalled indefinitely. Despite repeated follow-ups with the earlier developer’s partner Sunil Chandulal Shah, no progress occurred. The buyer issued a legal notice in November 2020 seeking execution of the agreement for sale.

In February 2021, she discovered via a public notice published in Hindustan Times that the land had been conveyed and the project taken over by another entity connected with Vinca Realtors Private Limited. She objected through her lawyer, asserting her prior allotment rights.

New Developer’s Defence

The new promoter argued:

• It never received any money from the complainant.
• It was not a party to the allotment letter.
• The buyer’s name did not appear in the list of advances attached to the 2020 dissolution-cum-conveyance deed.
• Therefore, it had no liability.

The developer’s counsel Viraj Bansod also contended the complaint was time-barred and legally unsustainable.

Buyer’s Argument

The complainant, represented by Mahesh Kukreja, relied on rulings of the Supreme Court of India and Bombay High Court, arguing:

• She qualifies as an allottee under RERA.
• Possession delay gives her an unconditional statutory right to relief.
• Once a project is registered, the promoter must honor existing allotments.

What MahaRERA Held

The Authority rejected the new developer’s core defence and laid down key findings:

1. Registered promoter = full liability
Obligations arise from promoter status, not from whether the promoter personally received money.

2. Buyer rights survive project transfer
Inter-se disputes between developers cannot override statutory rights of allottees.

3. Non-disclosure cannot defeat buyer claims
Failure to list an allottee in takeover documents cannot prejudice that buyer.

4. Delay clearly attributable to developers
Possession promised in 2018 has still not been delivered.

Crucial Finding

The Authority ruled that both developers are jointly and severally liable, meaning the buyer can enforce relief against either of them.

It also noted that the earlier developer, through counsel, had admitted liability and promised settlement within 60 days — which never happened. Another partner named in records was Nimish Dalal.

Final Order

MahaRERA directed:

• Interest on ₹31 lakh at SBI MCLR + 2% from 1 July 2018 till possession.
• Execution and registration of the sale agreement within 30 days.
• Possession with Occupation Certificate after balance payment.
• ₹5,000 cost for late reply filing by new promoter.
• ₹20,000 litigation costs to buyer.

Why This Order Matters

The ruling reinforces a major legal principle increasingly applied in stalled or transferred projects:

A developer who takes over a project also takes over its liabilities.

The Authority warned that allowing promoters to deny responsibility based on internal agreements would defeat the very purpose of the RERA law, which is meant to protect homebuyers.

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

The post New Builder Said “We Didn’t Take Your Money.” Buyer Still Won: MahaRERA Orders Possession, Interest in Mumbai Project Dispute appeared first on Square Feat India.

Member II, Shri Ravindra Deshpande, passed the final order on January 12, 2026, in Complaint No. CC006000000302965 filed by Akshay Pandurang Manve against M/s. The Constructions Co. (a sole proprietorship), concerning the project “The Scenic Residency Phase-1” (MahaRERA Registration No. P99000005001).

How the Case Began: From “Friendly Loan” to Registered Flat Agreement

The dispute originated in January 2016 when the complainant, through family connections, invested ₹20,00,000 in three separate cheques dated January 26, 2017, with the respondent builder. At that stage, the transaction was described as a “friendly loan” or investment carrying 2% monthly interest, with an oral understanding that the amount would either be repaid after project completion or adjusted towards the purchase of flats (one 1BHK and one RK flat).

The builder honoured part of the initial arrangement by paying ₹3,71,300 in interest through nine separate cheques between March 2017 and August 2018.

Subsequently, on April 23, 2019, the parties executed a registered Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 004, Ground Floor, B Wing in the project, for the exact consideration of ₹20,00,000. Clause 4 of the agreement clearly stipulated that possession would be handed over on or before March 2020.

The project itself had been registered with MahaRERA on August 9, 2017.

Builder Fails to Deliver Possession

Despite the clear timeline, the builder failed to hand over possession by March 2020. No Occupation Certificate has been obtained to date, and construction progress remains reportedly below 50% (though the builder claimed ~75% in submissions).

When the complainant demanded a refund citing inordinate delay, the builder resisted, arguing that the entire transaction was merely a financial/business investment/loan and not a promoter-allottee relationship under RERA. The builder further justified the delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and statutory extensions granted by MahaRERA.

MahaRERA’s Landmark Reasoning

After hearing both sides on December 26, 2024, MahaRERA rejected the builder’s maintainability objection and held that:

1. Existence of Promoter-Allottee Relationship The execution of a registered Agreement for Sale on April 23, 2019, in which the builder described himself as “Promoter” and allotted a specific flat to the complainant for a lump-sum consideration, unequivocally created the statutory relationship of promoter and allottee under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act.
2. Nomenclature is not decisive Relying on precedents from the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (in Srushti Sangam Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sarvapriya Leasing) and earlier MahaRERA orders (e.g., Nitish Kumar Patel & Anr. vs. Garnet Construction Pvt. Ltd.), the Authority ruled that labels such as “investor” or “loan” do not override the true nature of the transaction. When the agreement transfers ownership rights in a specific unit, it is a sale – not a mere security or loan arrangement.
3. Prior interest payments irrelevant after registration The interest paid before the Agreement for Sale (₹3,71,300) cannot nullify the legal effect of the subsequent registered document.
4. Absolute & Unconditional Right under Section 18 Citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2021), MahaRERA held that an allottee’s right to withdraw from the project and claim refund with interest is unconditional and absolute when possession is not handed over by the agreed date – irrespective of force majeure events, COVID-19, or general statutory extensions granted for project registration validity.

MahaRERA also noted that the builder had not demonstrated compliance with MahaRERA Orders No. 40/2022 and No. 7/2019, which require either consent of the majority of allottees or detailed justification for further extensions beyond initial COVID-related grace periods.

Final Relief Granted

The Authority allowed the complaint in full and passed the following directions:

• The complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project.
• The builder must refund the entire ₹20,00,000 along with interest at SBI Highest MCLR + 2% per annum from April 1, 2020 (the day after the agreed possession date) till the date of actual realization.
• The ₹3,71,300 already paid as interest shall be adjusted against the total interest liability under this order.

This order reinforces that once a registered Agreement for Sale is executed for a specific apartment in a RERA-registered project, the protections of the Act – including the powerful refund remedy under Section 18 – become available, even when the transaction originated from an investment or loan arrangement.

Legal experts view this as an important clarification for cases where informal investments are later formalized through registered agreements, ensuring that homebuyers/investors are not left without RERA remedies.

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

The post Investor Turned Flat Purchase Qualifies as ‘Allottee’ – Builder Ordered to Refund ₹20 Lakh + Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.