Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a developer cannot indefinitely delay conveyance of land and building by claiming rights over future additional Floor Space Index (FSI) arising from a change in development regulations. The Court made it clear that once the building is complete and flats have been sold, the statutory obligation under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) to convey the property must be fulfilled, and the possibility of additional FSI cannot be used as a permanent shield.

The case concerned land at Survey No. 161A/2 and other survey numbers, CTS No. 1520/A, Village Vile Parle (West), S.V. Road, Mumbai. Ariisto Realtors had entered into a Development Agreement and Supplementary Deed dated 3 March 2010 with the landowners. The developer constructed the building known as Ariisto Cloud comprising ground plus nine upper floors with 12 residential flats, one commercial unit and two commercial shops. Flat purchasers of this building formed Respondent No. 2 Society, which was registered on 28 June 2016.

Under the Development Agreement, the developer was given an option to utilise future additional FSI or TDR by paying ₹51,000 per square metre to the landowners. After the introduction of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR 2034), the developer claimed that additional FSI of 841.16 sq.m. had become available and filed applications with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to utilise the same.

The society first applied for unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11(3) of MOFA (Application No. 179 of 2024). The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (3) and Competent Authority rejected the application on 10 March 2025 as premature. The Authority noted that construction work on the ground and first floors was pending, that 81.03 sq.m. of sanctioned FSI remained unutilised, and that the developer had a claim to additional FSI under the Development Agreement. Liberty was, however, granted to the society to file a fresh application.

Thereafter, the society filed a second application (Application No. 56 of 2025). By this time, the building had received a completion certificate and the balance FSI, according to the society, was only 3.25 sq.m. The Competent Authority allowed the application on 14 July 2025 and issued a certificate of unilateral deemed conveyance of land admeasuring 1241.65 sq.m. from the larger plot along with the building standing thereon.

Ariisto Realtors challenged this order before the High Court. Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia, appearing for the developer, argued that the Competent Authority had effectively reviewed its earlier order dated 10 March 2025, a power it does not possess. He submitted that the second application was barred by the principle of res judicata and that the liberty granted earlier could be exercised only after the developer utilised the balance and future additional FSI. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Faime Makers Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and other decisions holding that the power of review is not inherent and must be specifically conferred by statute.

Counsel for the society and landowners opposed the petition. They contended that the second application was filed strictly in terms of the liberty granted after completion of construction, that the society had already been registered for nearly a decade, and that private contractual arrangements between the developer and landowners could not override the statutory rights of flat purchasers under MOFA. It was also pointed out that the landowners themselves had expressed willingness to convey the land.

Justice Marne rejected the developer’s challenge on multiple grounds. The Court held that the Competent Authority had not exercised the power of review. It had merely allowed the society to exercise the liberty that had been expressly granted in the earlier order. The Court carefully distinguished the facts from Faime Makers and B.K. Corporation, noting that in those cases the liberty was conditional upon the outcome of pending civil court proceedings involving complex title issues. In the present case, no such civil adjudication was required. The only dispute related to the developer’s claimed right over future additional FSI.

The Court observed that the main reason recorded in the March 2025 order for treating the application as premature was the incomplete construction of the building. Once the construction was complete, the society was entitled to approach the Authority again. Accepting the developer’s interpretation would mean that the liberty might never become exercisable, because the developer is not entitled in law to put up additional construction by exploiting FSI arising from a subsequent policy change.

Justice Marne emphasised the settled position of law that a promoter cannot continuously exploit the development potential of the land for eternity without conveying it to the society. Referring to the Division Bench judgment in Lakeview Developers vs. Eternia Co-operative Housing Society Limited and the recent decision in Flagship Infrastructure Ltd., the Court reiterated that the obligation to convey arises within the period prescribed under Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules — four months from the date of registration of the society. Clauses in private agreements that attempt to postpone this obligation indefinitely are void to the extent they conflict with the statute.

The Court noted that the society was registered on 28 June 2016. The developer was under a statutory duty to execute the conveyance within four months of that date. The additional FSI generated under DCPR 2034, introduced in 2018, belongs to the society and not to the developer or even the original landowners once the flats have been sold and the building completed.

Justice Marne further observed that the petition appeared to be motivated by the developer’s desire to “milk” the additional FSI made available by the new regulations. The Court stated that no other party — neither the landowners nor the neighbouring society — was opposing the conveyance. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to secure an undue commercial advantage or to perpetuate an unjust gain. Citing Supreme Court decisions including Gadde Venkateswara Rao and MP Mittal vs. State of Haryana, the Court held that it would not interfere merely on technical grounds when justice clearly lay on the side of the homebuyers.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

The judgment is expected to provide substantial relief to numerous cooperative housing societies across Mumbai and Maharashtra that continue to face resistance from developers citing unutilised or future FSI as a ground for delaying conveyance. It reinforces the clear legislative intent of MOFA that once flats are sold and the organisation of flat purchasers is formed, the land and building must be transferred without indefinite delays.

Also Read: Conveyance Deed has to be registered within 3 months of Receiving OC

The post Big Win for Homebuyers: No More Delaying Conveyance Over Additional FSI appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case revolves around New Sangeeta CHS Ltd in Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai. In 2011, the society entered into a development agreement with Pinkesh Jain of Valdariya Constructions for redeveloping their building. Three buyers — Bhupendra K. Shah, Nimit B. Shah, and Jigar B. Shah — booked flats in the proposed project “Valdariya Residency” and paid substantial amounts (₹50 lakh each) to the developer.

The developer executed Agreements for Sale in January 2017, promising possession by January 2018. However, the project never reached completion. In February 2018, the developer unilaterally terminated the Development Agreement with the society. The society accepted the termination, took back possession of the project, and later appointed a new developer to complete the work.

Despite this exit, the buyers continued to pursue the original developer for a refund. After filing complaints and entering into consent terms with the society in a City Civil Court suit, they approached MahaRERA in June 2021 seeking refund of their money along with interest from Pinkesh Jain (erstwhile developer).

MahaRERA’s Order (June 2023): The Authority directed the buyers to approach the City Civil Court for enforcement of the consent terms and granted liberty to approach MahaRERA again after final disposal of related proceedings.

The Appellate Tribunal’s Verdict (5th May 2026): The MahaREAT, comprising Member (Judicial) Shriram R. Jagtap and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara, dismissed the buyers’ appeal and upheld MahaRERA’s order.

Key Reasoning by the Tribunal:

• Once the Development Agreement was terminated in February 2018 and accepted by the society, Pinkesh Jain ceased to be the “Promoter” of the project under RERA.
• The complaint was filed in June 2021 — more than three years after the developer had exited.
• Under Section 31 of the RERA Act, complaints can only be filed against a current Promoter, Allottee, or Real Estate Agent.
• Since the respondent was an “erstwhile promoter” on the date of filing the complaint, MahaRERA had no jurisdiction over him.

The Tribunal clarified that the buyers must now pursue recovery through the Civil Court. Notably, the buyers had already reached a settlement with the society to get the flats at current market rates, with an adjustment for the amount paid to the old developer.

Important Lesson for Homebuyers: This judgment highlights a critical risk in society redevelopment projects. Buyers should file RERA complaints while the original developer is still the registered promoter. Once the developer legally exits the project by terminating the Development Agreement, RERA protection against that developer largely ends.

Homebuyers are advised to thoroughly verify the status of the Development Agreement and the promoter’s registration before investing large sums in redevelopment projects.

Also Read: Housing Society Treated as Promoter in Redevelopment Dispute If It Shares..

The post Society Redevelopment Gone Wrong: Why RERA Refused to Help Flat Buyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Tribunal emphatically rejected the promoter’s plea that such parallel actions amount to “abuse of process” or violation of the doctrine of election.

Case Background

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Mrs. Ashvini Pendse and another allottee against Naiknavare Housing Developments Pvt. Ltd. before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA). The project is located in Maharashtra, and the buyers had paid substantial amounts towards their apartment.

On 25 April 2023, MahaRERA allowed the complaint and directed the promoter to refund the entire amount paid by the allottees along with interest.

What the Original RERA Order Directed

The operative part of the MahaRERA order (reproduced verbatim in the Tribunal order) stated:

“The complaint is allowed and the Complainants are entitled to withdraw from the said Project and seek refund of the amounts paid by them towards the consideration of the apartment purchased in the said Project. The interest on refund amounts shall be applicable from 01.02.2016 at the rate as prescribed under Rule 18… However, to ensure that the said Project is not jeopardised… the amounts of refund and the interest thereupon shall be paid by the Respondent to the Complainants upon the OC being received… or on or before 31.12.2023 whichever is earlier… in 3 equal monthly instalments thereafter.”

The order also directed cancellation of the Agreement for Sale and allowed deduction of the COVID moratorium period from interest calculation.

Appellants’ Limited Appeal

Aggrieved only by certain adverse directions, the homebuyers filed Appeal No. AT0050000245225 before MREAT. They did not challenge the core refund direction. Instead, they sought:

• Interest from the actual dates of respective payments (instead of the arbitrary 01.02.2016).
• Interest without deduction of the COVID moratorium period.
• Refund of stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental costs.

Meanwhile, the allottees also initiated non-compliance proceedings under Section 40 of the RERA Act. In March 2024, MahaRERA issued a recovery warrant against the promoter.

Promoter’s Stay Application & Arguments

The promoter filed Misc. Application No. 03/2026 seeking a complete stay on the RERA order and all recovery proceedings. Their main plea was that the homebuyers, by enforcing the order through recovery, had “elected” to accept it and could not now challenge any part of it in appeal.

Tribunal’s Strong Ruling (Pronounced on 4 May 2026)

A bench comprising Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande dismissed the promoter’s stay application with costs of ₹25,000.

In a detailed order, the Tribunal held (verbatim quotes):

“The statutory right of appeal under Section 44 is independent of and not defeated by recourse to non-compliance/execution proceedings under Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016. The appeal is maintainable notwithstanding the appellants having taken steps to recover in execution of the impugned order.”

The Tribunal further observed:

“The appellants have not challenged the impugned order in toto. The appellants have accepted and sought enforcement of the substantive direction of refund granted in their favour. They have confined the appeal only to the limited issues… There is no inconsistency in enforcing the unchallenged, beneficial part of the order under Section 40 and assailing only the adverse, erroneous part in appeal.”

Calling the promoter’s application an “abuse of process”, the Tribunal added:

“The conduct of the promoter amounts to abuse of process of law and deserves to be imposed with heavy costs… The promoter/respondent shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards costs, which the promoter shall directly deposit in the bank account of the appellants/allottees.”

The stay application was rejected outright.

What This Means for Homebuyers

This order sets a clear precedent in Maharashtra:

• You do not need to challenge the entire RERA order to file an appeal.
• You can enforce the favourable parts (refund, possession, compensation) immediately through Section 40 recovery.
• You can simultaneously appeal only the unfavourable parts (interest calculation, moratorium deduction, additional refunds).
• Promoters cannot stall execution by crying “doctrine of election” or “abuse of process”.

Legal experts say this pro-homebuyer ruling will discourage builders from filing frivolous stay applications and will strengthen the hands of thousands of allottees fighting delayed projects.

MREAT has once again reiterated that the RERA Act is a beneficial legislation meant to protect homebuyers, not promoters.

Also Read: Even Without Agreement for Sale, MahaRERA Can Order Refund to Prevent Injustice

The post Homebuyers Can Challenge Only Unfavourable RERA Parts & Recover Simultaneously appeared first on Square Feat India.

On 7 April 2026, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) submitted the Report of the Committee on Framing Guidelines for Insolvency Proceedings in Real Estate Sector. This 191-page document, prepared at the direct direction of the Supreme Court, could dramatically change how stalled real estate projects are handled under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). For the first time, the system is being told to treat homebuyers not as ordinary creditors chasing money, but as people whose primary need is to get their home delivered.

How Did We Reach This Point?

When the IBC and RERA were both launched in 2016, everyone hoped the twin laws would protect homebuyers. Homebuyers were later recognised as financial creditors in 2018. Yet reality was different. By late 2025, around 553 real estate cases had been admitted into insolvency proceedings, directly impacting over 1.08 lakh homebuyers. When you include family members, nearly a quarter of a million Indians have been stuck in this uncertainty — paying EMIs on loans for flats they don’t have, living in rented houses, and watching their hard-earned money vanish into legal delays.

The Supreme Court noticed this pain. In its September 2025 judgment in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors., the Court clearly said the existing IBC framework was not working well for real estate. It asked the IBBI to form a committee with experts from ministries, RERAs, land authorities, homebuyer groups, and insolvency professionals to suggest practical, homebuyer-friendly changes. The committee, chaired by IBBI Whole Time Member Jayanti Prasad, consulted everyone — from banks and developers to frustrated homebuyer associations — and submitted this report within months.

The Big Shift This Report Proposes

The core message of the report is simple yet revolutionary: Insolvency in real estate should be about completing the project and delivering homes, not liquidating companies or recovering money at any cost.

Here are the most important changes explained in plain language:

1. Project-wise Insolvency (The Biggest Relief) Today, if one project of a builder fails, the entire company goes into insolvency and every tower suffers. The report says: admit and resolve only the defaulting project. Your building should not be dragged down because another project of the same developer is in trouble. Solvent or nearly completed towers can continue normally. This single change can save thousands of homes from unnecessary delay or liquidation.
2. Completion Over Liquidation The committee has recommended that resolution (completing the project) should be the priority. Liquidation should be the last option only when no viable plan exists. This means the focus shifts from selling assets to finishing construction.
3. Your Money Stays Protected in Escrow Accounts Homebuyer payments sitting in project escrow accounts will no longer be frozen the moment insolvency starts. The report wants these funds ring-fenced and used only for that specific project’s construction — so work doesn’t stop for lack of money you have already paid.
4. Land Authorities Can No Longer Kill Your Project In many cases (especially in NOIDA, Greater NOIDA, etc.), development authorities cancel leases or demand full dues the moment insolvency begins. The report calls for Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that prevent unilateral lease cancellation during the process and force authorities to accept restructured dues as per the approved plan.
5. Your Voice Will Finally Matter Authorised Representatives (ARs) who represent homebuyers in the Committee of Creditors will have to hold town-hall meetings and explain resolution plans properly before voting. You will get clear summaries of what the plan actually means for your flat — possession or refund — and your choice will carry real weight.
6. A Monitoring Committee That Actually Works After a resolution plan is approved, a Project Monitoring Committee (with homebuyer representatives, RERA, lenders, and the new buyer) will oversee actual construction. RERA will also register the new timelines and can penalise the successful resolution applicant if deadlines are missed.
7. Faster Approvals and “Clean Slate” for the New Buyer Regulatory approvals that expire during the long insolvency process will be automatically extended. The new buyer (resolution applicant) will get a clean slate — no surprise old tax demands or penalties can be raised later. This will encourage more serious bidders to step in and complete projects quickly.
8. Genuine Homebuyers Protected from Misuse The report gives clear guidelines to distinguish real homebuyers (who want possession) from speculative investors who use buy-back or assured-return schemes only to make quick money. Speculators can still file claims but will find it harder to trigger unnecessary insolvency proceedings.

How Will This Help You as a Homebuyer?

If these recommendations are turned into rules and law (and the report strongly urges immediate action by IBBI, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and state RERAs), your experience will change in practical ways:

• Your project will be handled separately, so delays in one tower won’t kill others.
• Construction can continue using your own payments instead of stopping completely.
• You will have real information and a real say before any plan is approved.
• Once a plan is approved, there will be active monitoring so the new developer cannot delay or demand extra money quietly.
• The entire process will become faster, more predictable, and focused on giving you your home instead of endless court dates.

The committee has given 155 specific recommendations on 55 issues. It is not just theory — it is a practical roadmap built after listening to homebuyers like you.

Time to Act — Spread the Awareness

This report came out only last week, yet very few homebuyers know about it. Share this article with your buyers’ group WhatsApp, Facebook communities, and RERA forums. Write to your state RERA and local MP asking them to implement these guidelines quickly. The Supreme Court has already shown the way; now it is up to all of us to make sure the recommendations do not gather dust.

For the first time in a decade, the system is being redesigned with the homebuyer at the centre. If implemented well, this could be the turning point that finally delivers the homes lakhs of families have been waiting for.

Also Read: Share of Real Estate in Recoveries Under IBC Rises to 18.8%

The post Your Stalled Dream Home Could Finally Be Yours: New IBBI Report Offers Lifeline to Lakhs of Trapped Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

The common judgment, delivered on 9th April 2026 by Member (Judicial) Shri Shriram R. Jagtap and Member (Administrative) Dr. Rajagopal Devara, allows two appeals filed by Mr. Pankaj Mohan (aged 50) and Mrs. Sudha Agarwal (aged 46), residents of Vishnu Shivam Towers, Thakur Village, Kandivali East.

Case Background

The couple had jointly booked two flats — Flat No. 36-A and 36-B — in the Winter Green wing of Rivali Park through letters of allotment dated 28 April 2012. The promoter had promised possession within 48 months plus 6 months grace period from the commencement of construction (30 June 2011), meaning the original deadline was 31 December 2015.

The allottees paid approximately 90% of the consideration value — ₹1,32,33,859 out of ₹1,39,75,566 per flat. However, possession was not delivered on time. The project, which was ongoing when RERA came into force in 2017, was registered with MahaRERA with a revised completion date of December 2019. The promoter eventually obtained the Occupation Certificate on 7 April 2021, and the allottees took physical possession on 17 May 2021 after executing sale agreements in December 2020.

Aggrieved by the prolonged delay, the homebuyers filed complaints before MahaRERA seeking two main reliefs:

• Direction to execute and register Agreements for Sale.
• Payment of interest/compensation for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The MahaRERA Order Dated 3 April 2023

On 3rd April 2023, MahaRERA passed a common order in Complaint Nos. CC006000000055723 of 2023 and CC009000000055728 of 2023. The Authority largely rejected the buyers’ claim for delay interest. It appeared to accept the promoter’s defence that the allottees had acquiesced to the delays by continuing to make payments without strong protests and by not objecting promptly to revised timelines communicated via letters in 2015 and 2017.

MahaRERA gave credence to the promoter’s explanations for the delay, including changes in Development Control Regulations (DCR), funding issues with lender Indiabulls Finance, sand scarcity, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, no interest was awarded to the buyers.

MREAT’s Ruling in Favour of Homebuyers

The allottees challenged the MahaRERA order before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. AT006000000154496 of 2023 and AT006000000154497 of 2023, represented by Adv. Manan Sharma. The promoter was represented by Adv. Abir Patel.

In a detailed 24-page common judgment, the Tribunal held that:

• The promoter cannot unilaterally revise possession dates through letters. The dates mentioned in the 2012 allotment letters are binding unless mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties.
• Continued payments or silence by the allottees does not amount to waiver of their right to claim interest under Section 18 of RERA. They never expressly consented to the extensions.
• The promoter’s force majeure excuses (DCR changes, financial crisis with Indiabulls, sand scarcity, and Covid-19) were not sustainable. Covid-19 occurred much after the original 2015 and even the RERA-registered 2019 deadlines.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Tribunal reiterated that if the delay is not attributable to the allottee, they have an unqualified right to interest for delayed possession, regardless of external factors.

The Tribunal observed that the allottees had paid nearly the entire amount without default and had even inquired about compensation via email in 2015, showing they did not relinquish their rights.

Final Directions by MREAT

The Appellate Tribunal allowed both appeals and directed CCI Projects Pvt. Ltd. to:

• Pay interest to the allottees on the amounts paid at State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2% per annum, from 1 January 2016 till 17 May 2021 (date of possession).
• Pay costs of ₹10,000 in each appeal.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

This ruling reinforces the strong buyer-protection provisions under RERA and sends a clear message that promoters cannot escape liability for delayed possession through unilateral extensions or general excuses.

The dispute is part of a series of cases involving the Rivali Park (Winter Green) project, where multiple homebuyers have approached authorities over delays and related issues.

Also Read: Developers With Incomplete RERA Applications Asked to Reapply After MahaRERA Closes Old Portal Cases

The post MahaRERA Order Overturned: Homebuyers Win Delay Interest from CCI Projects in Rivali Park’s Winter Green Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case pertains to Unit No. 3502 on the 35th floor of Tower C in Omkar 1973, Worli. Here is the complete chronological sequence of events:

• March 2015 – April 2016: The Mehta family (Mr Mahendra Mehta, Mr Vikram Mehta and Mrs Hinal Mehta) applied for and received a Letter of Allotment dated 26 April 2016 for the flat. They paid ₹7.33 crore as advance consideration plus ₹35.41 lakh towards TDS, Service Tax and VAT — a total of ₹7.69 crore. The allotment letter promised possession on or before 30 June 2019, extendable latest to 30 June 2020.
• 2018: Construction of Tower C came to a complete standstill after multiple Bombay High Court orders restrained the developer from carrying out further construction and creating any third-party interest on the top floors. On 1 August 2018, the Mehtas issued a legal notice demanding full refund with 14% interest and cancellation of the allotment.
• 2021: With no response or refund from the developer, the family approached MahaRERA by filing Complaint No. CC009000000195169 of 2021.
• 19 December 2022: MahaRERA Member-I directed Omkar Realtors to refund the amount paid. However, the Authority allowed the builder to deduct 2% of the total consideration (as per MahaRERA Order No. 35 of 2022) and crucially denied any interest on the refunded sum.
• 2023: Aggrieved by the absence of interest and the 2% deduction, the Mehta family filed Appeal No. AT006000000144304 of 2023 before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
• 23 March 2026: The appeal was heard through video conferencing.
• 8 April 2026: In a detailed judgment authored by Member (A) Dr Rajagopal Devara (and concurred by Member (J) Shriram R. Jagtap), the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that under Sections 18(1)(a) and 19(4) of the RERA Act, the allottees have an “unqualified right” to full refund along with interest when the promoter fails to deliver possession. The Tribunal ruled that the delay was solely attributable to the builder and court orders, not the homebuyers. It set aside the 2% deduction and the denial of interest.

The Tribunal modified the MahaRERA order and directed Omkar Realtors to refund the full ₹7.69 crore along with interest at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment till actual realisation. Parties are to bear their own costs.

Advocate Akash Rebello appeared for the homebuyers, while Advocate Sonali Jain represented the developer.

This order is seen as a strong reinforcement of homebuyer rights under RERA, especially in cases where projects are stalled due to the promoter’s litigation issues.

Also Read: Omkar Sells 9 Flats Worth ₹131 Crore To A Buyer

The post Omkar 1973: Builder Delayed Possession, MahaRERA Denied Interest & Cut 2%; Tribunal Grants Full Refund + Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the judgment on 30 March 2026 in Second Appeal Nos. 121 and 122 of 2026, dismissing the appeals filed by Rare Townships Private Limited against homebuyer Mitul Gada. The Court upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s order permitting the allottee to withdraw the refund amount deposited by the promoter during the pendency of the appeal.

Sequence of Events

• November 2015: Mitul Gada entered into two Agreements for Sale with Rare Townships for Flat Nos. 1503 and 1504 in the “North Sea Heights (A1)” project at Ghatkopar. The promoter promised possession by 31 December 2018. Gada paid ₹98,92,960 for Flat 1504 and ₹69,66,437 for Flat 1503.
• 2018–2020: Possession was not delivered. Construction came to a standstill. Gada filed complaints before MahaRERA seeking refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.
• February 2020: MahaRERA referred the complaints to the Adjudicating Officer.
• March 2021: Adjudicating Officer directed refund with interest and compensation.
• 2021–2025: Promoter challenged the order in writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court directed the promoter to deposit the amounts (totaling over ₹3.26 crore) in Court. The writ petitions were disposed of in April 2025, remanding the matter to MahaRERA with liberty to the Authority to disburse the deposited amounts if found due to the allottee.
• September 2025: MahaRERA directed the promoter to refund the entire amount paid by Gada along with interest at SBI’s highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2% (with COVID moratorium benefit).
• Late 2025: Promoter filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and sought stay on execution. The Tribunal granted stay on further recovery but allowed Gada to withdraw the deposited amounts subject to an undertaking to refund the money with interest if the promoter ultimately succeeds.
• January–March 2026: Aggrieved by the withdrawal permission, the promoter approached the Bombay High Court in second appeals.

Court’s Strong Observations on Homebuyer Vulnerability

Dismissing the appeals, Justice Jamadar observed:

“The promoter and allottee cannot be placed on an equal footing. The capacity to withstand the deprivation of the legitimate amount vastly differs and the position of the allottee is generally very vulnerable.”

The Court noted that over 11 years had passed since the agreements were signed and more than seven years since the promised possession date, yet the project remained incomplete. The allottee continued paying EMIs on home loans while his hard-earned money remained blocked with the promoter.

The judgment clarified that the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA (at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to the allottee) is meant to safeguard the allottee’s interest. However, this does not freeze the money indefinitely. The Appellate Tribunal has discretion to release the deposited amount in deserving cases, especially where long delays and clear default by the promoter are established.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (2021) but clarified that the pre-deposit provision is not a bar on disbursement during appeal when equities demand it.

Key Takeaways

• Homebuyers’ money paid years ago is not “developer’s money” — it remains the buyer’s legitimate amount plus interest for deprivation.
• Appellate Tribunals can permit withdrawal subject to undertakings, balancing the promoter’s right to appeal with the buyer’s immediate hardship.
• The ruling reinforces RERA’s beneficial intent to protect vulnerable homebuyers from prolonged litigation and financial distress.

The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the interim applications also disposed of. The allottee can now withdraw the deposited refund amount upon furnishing the required undertaking.

Also Read: Refund Allowed — But Not Final: Homebuyers Must Repay If Builder Wins Appeal

The post Homebuyers Are Vulnerable, Developers Not on Equal Footing: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case began over a decade ago and has now spiraled from a consumer complaint to a high-level criminal inquiry.

Chronological Timeline of the Case

• May 2012: DLF launched a marketing campaign for “The Primus DLF Garden City,” a premium group housing project in Sector 82A, Gurugram (New Gurgaon). Brochures and promotions emphasized luxury amenities, including two 24-metre-wide sector access roads for seamless connectivity, banquet facilities, tennis courts, swimming pools, clubhouses, and other high-end features.
• August–December 2012: Homebuyers, including lead petitioner Swarnpreet Kaur and others (around 696 allottees in total), booked apartments. Buyers paid substantial amounts—often nearly 95% of the cost (e.g., one buyer paid ₹1.16 crore). Apartment Buyer’s Agreements were signed in December 2012, promising possession within 42 months, by February 28, 2016.
• February 2016: The promised possession date arrived, but the project remained incomplete according to homebuyers. No full handover occurred.
• October 7, 2016: A Partial Occupation Certificate (POC) was issued by authorities. Possession was offered in January 2017, but buyers alleged major deficiencies: no permanent water supply (reliance on tankers until as late as September 2021 in some cases), generator-dependent electricity, unfinished internal and external roads, missing club amenities (e.g., pools, tennis courts), and one promised 24-metre access road allegedly built on private farmland (vulnerable to expiry) while the other remained unconstructed, risking the project being landlocked.
• June 2017: Aggrieved homebuyers approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, misleading representations, and failure to deliver promised infrastructure.
• 2023: The NCDRC partly allowed the complaints, finding deficiencies in service and unfair practices by DLF. It directed the builder to fulfill the promises, provide compensation, and complete the committed amenities/infrastructure.
• Post-2023: DLF and homebuyers filed cross-appeals against the NCDRC order. Homebuyers argued the relief was inadequate or not enforced, while highlighting ongoing issues and alleged regulatory lapses (e.g., by Haryana government bodies, erstwhile HUDA/Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, and Municipal Corporation of Gurugram) in approvals and oversight, possibly involving “collusive” elements.
• February 25, 2026: In the batch of appeals (lead case: Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors.), the Supreme Court heard extensive arguments. It noted a prima facie “huge mismatch” between legal requirements, DLF’s representations to buyers, and ground realities. The bench lambasted regulatory authorities for failing to safeguard consumers, emphasizing that many Indians invest their entire life savings in a single home/flat, often late in life, yet face betrayal.Observing broader concerns in the organized real estate sector, the Court took a strict view and directed the CBI to conduct an independent inquiry. CBI Director Praveen Sood confirmed the agency’s willingness. A dedicated team will operate under the Director’s supervision as “officers of the Court,” hear all sides, and submit progress/findings by April 25, 2026. The matter is part-heard and next listed on April 28, 2026.Additionally, DLF agreed to pay ₹1 lakh upfront to one respondent (homebuyer Rohit Bhayana) as litigation expenses.

The Court clarified no final opinion has been expressed yet against any party—this is an interim step for inquiry.

DLF has maintained it complied with laws, delivered possession post-occupancy certificate in 2017 with utilities, and views the matter as sub judice with no material business impact.

Also Read: DLF Sells 221 Dahlias Units for Rs 16,000 Crore

The post Here’s Why the Supreme Court Initiated a CBI Probe into DLF’s The Primus Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case, Vinit Bahri and Another vs. M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 2023, Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 114), was decided by a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria.

The dispute dates back to March 2005, when Vinit Bahri and his co-appellant booked a residential flat (Unit No. VP-C/802) in the builder’s group housing project called “The Villas” at Village Sahraul, Sector-25, Gurgaon. They paid an initial booking amount of Rs. 15 lakh.

On September 2, 2005, the flat was allotted to them – a ground-floor unit in Tower-C with a super built-up area of 3,590 square feet.

In June 2006, the parties signed a Flat Buyer’s Agreement. Clause 9.1 promised possession within 36 months from the agreement date, plus a 90-day grace period for obtaining the occupation certificate – meaning possession was due by around September 11, 2009.

The buyers alleged that M/s MGF Developers Ltd. (the main builder, respondent No. 1) failed to deliver on time. They claimed the builder unilaterally changed the layout plan of Tower-C without informing buyers (admitted in a builder meeting on April 23, 2009). Despite this, the builder raised multiple demands for extra payments, including Rs. 10.82 lakh on September 6, 2009, and later charges for EEDC, IDC, service tax, and fixtures (totaling over Rs. 30 lakh plus Rs. 4.8 lakh for deficient fixtures).

The buyers paid these under protest and took possession on January 8, 2015. The occupation certificate was issued by the Haryana authorities on August 14, 2015.

In January 2017, Vinit Bahri and his co-appellant filed a consumer complaint (No. 74/2017) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi. They sought:

• 18% interest on the amount paid (Rs. 1.59 crore approximately),
• Rs. 50 lakh for mental agony and harassment,
• Rs. 15 lakh for issues due to the Tower-C layout change,
• Rs. 35.61 lakh as refund of excess charges for fixtures/fittings,
• Rs. 2.5 lakh in litigation costs, and other reliefs.

The builder defended the case, arguing that the buyers had already received/adjusted delay compensation of Rs. 12.10 lakh as per the agreement’s Clause 9.7. They also claimed the flat’s area had increased by about 271 square feet, justifying extra payments. Crucially, MGF Developers pointed out that the buyers had leased the flat to a third party (Sunil Raman) starting March 2015, with a formal lease deed executed on March 3, 2016. This, they argued, showed “commercial purpose,” disqualifying the buyers from consumer forum protection.

Respondent No. 2 (another party involved earlier in the project) claimed it had transferred all liabilities to MGF Developers via deeds in 2013 and 2016.

On May 11, 2023, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint purely on the ground that leasing made it a commercial activity, so the buyers were not “consumers.”

Vinit Bahri appealed to the Supreme Court. The apex court overturned the NCDRC order, ruling that the burden to prove “commercial purpose” lies on the builder (not the buyer), and it must be shown on a “preponderance of probabilities.” Mere leasing of a residential flat does not automatically prove the dominant intention at purchase was profit-making or commercial – there must be a close nexus between the purchase and profit generation.

The court emphasized that buying property (even multiple units) cannot ipso facto exclude consumer status unless dominant commercial intent is proven. Relying on earlier judgments like Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (2020) and others, the bench held the NCDRC erred in dismissing the case without examining merits.

The Supreme Court set aside the May 2023 NCDRC order and restored the complaint for fresh decision on merits – including delay, extra demands, layout changes, and compensation.

This ruling strengthens protections for homebuyers facing builder delays or unfair practices, ensuring renting out a flat (common for investment or family reasons) does not bar access to consumer forums.

Also Read: This Supreme Court Judgement is Very important for Homebuyers & Builders as well

The post Supreme Court: Renting Out Your Flat Won’t Stop You from Suing Builder for Delays – Big Win for Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, in a detailed judgment pronounced today in Writ Petition No. 1673 of 2022 and connected matters, upheld orders passed by the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies) granting unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to the 1960s when a large parcel of land in Ratan Nagar (Dahisar/Borivali East) was originally held by individuals like Surendranath Jain, Rajkumar Seth, and others. In 1963, agreements were made to transfer it to promoters who formed Ratan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (the “Mother Society” or Ratan CHS), registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Ratan CHS subdivided the land into smaller plots (e.g., A-7, A-20/21, A-22, A-24, A-26) and allotted them to individuals or groups on what parties later claimed were leasehold terms. These allottees then entered development agreements with builders, primarily entities linked to Paramanand Builders LLP (formerly Parmanand Builders Pvt. Ltd., also known as Geopreneur Corp. Pvt. Ltd. in some petitions).

The builders constructed multi-storey buildings, sold flats to individual buyers on an “ownership basis,” and flat purchasers formed their own cooperative housing societies, including:

• Siddhraj Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Patan Jain Mandal Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Shri Sai Sadguru Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Gauri Sadhana Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
• Greenways Coop. Housing Society Ltd.
• Jai Ashish Coop. Housing Society Ltd.

After construction was complete, societies formed, and possession handed over, these smaller societies applied for deemed conveyance under MOFA Section 11(3). The Competent Authority granted unilateral deemed conveyance, treating the promoter (primarily Ratan CHS, as it held title and enabled construction) as obligated to transfer full ownership rights in the land and building.

The Core Argument and Court’s Rejection

Developers and Ratan CHS challenged these orders in the High Court, arguing:

• Original allotment letters, development agreements, and flat purchase agreements contemplated only leasehold rights (e.g., 99-year lease), not outright sale or conveyance of land ownership.
• Clauses repeatedly referred to future execution of a “lease” or “indenture of lease,” so societies could claim only lease assignment, not full ownership.

The court firmly rejected this, holding that MOFA is welfare legislation designed to protect flat buyers from indefinite retention of land title by promoters/builders.

Key observations by Justice Borkar:

• Broad definition of “promoter” under MOFA Section 2(c) includes anyone who “causes” construction — here, Ratan CHS obtained Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) and Commencement Certificate in its name and permitted development, making it a promoter.
• Section 11 mandates transfer of the promoter’s entire right, title, and interest in land + building to the flat buyers’ society. Private contracts cannot override this statutory duty.
• No valid lease existed: Municipal permissions initially banned leasing/resale for 10 years due to public housing reservation. No registered lease deed was ever executed afterward, so the land remained in ownership with the promoter (Ratan CHS).
• Clauses in agreements referring to “lease” cannot defeat MOFA — promoters cannot use wording to permanently retain land while selling flats on ownership basis.
• Deemed conveyance reflects the promoter’s actual entitlement: full ownership here, so full conveyance to societies.

The court dismissed all petitions (including cross-petitions by Ratan CHS), upheld the deemed conveyance orders, and directed authorities to implement them. It clarified that deeper title disputes, if any, can be pursued in civil court, but MOFA proceedings stand.

What This Means for Homebuyers

This judgment is a powerful reminder:

• Once a building is complete, society formed, and statutory period lapsed, flat buyers have a statutory right to deemed conveyance — not a favour.
• Builders/landowners cannot hide behind old agreements or “lease-only” clauses to block ownership transfer.
• MOFA overrides private contracts where they conflict with buyer protection.
• Societies facing similar delays should apply under Section 11(3) without fear — the law is on their side.

Homebuyers in Maharashtra can now approach competent authorities more confidently for deemed conveyance, knowing courts will enforce full title transfer when builders delay.

The ruling reinforces that housing is not just about flats — it’s about owning a share in the land beneath.

Also Read: Stuck With Deemed Conveyance? Maharashtra Govt Launches Statewide 4-Day Camp for Housing Societies

The post Bombay HC: Flat Buyers Win Deemed Conveyance Row appeared first on Square Feat India.