“The committee noted that the global environment has deteriorated since the last policy meeting with the conflict lingering amidst a fragile truce. The adverse implications of the extended disruption in supply chains and elevated energy prices are reflected in the moderation of growth and increase in inflation projections from the April policy,” Governor Malhotra stated.

This decision to maintain the repo rate serves as a critical anchor for India’s residential real estate sector, which continues to witness strong annual growth despite short-term geopolitical shocks. The rate pause provides stability amid rising consumer pressures and volatile construction environments.

Impact on Homebuyers and Home Loans

The repo rate is the interest rate at which the Reserve Bank of India lends short-term funds to commercial banks. When the RBI changes the repo rate, it directly influences the cost of borrowing for banks, which in turn affects the interest rates they charge on loans, including home loans.

With the repo rate unchanged at 5.25%, banks are expected to keep their lending rates, such as those linked to the Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR) or External Benchmark Lending Rate (EBLR), stable in the near term. This means home loan EMIs for buyers will remain predictable and manageable, shielding them from immediate upward pressure on borrowing costs.

For homebuyers, this stability is particularly welcome. In an environment of elevated global oil prices and rising domestic construction costs due to the Middle East conflict, stable financing prevents additional strain on monthly budgets. Potential buyers who had paused their decisions due to uncertainty can now move forward with greater confidence, as borrowing costs are not being hiked.

Real Estate Sector Outlook

The residential real estate sector has delivered mixed but resilient performance. According to Pankaj Kumar, VP – Fundamental Research at Kotak Securities, listed developers reported 16% YoY pre-sales growth in Q4FY26, taking full-year FY26 pre-sales to Rs 1.37 lakh crore (up 17% YoY). While industry sales grew 5% in FY26, this was largely price-led, with volumes declining 3%. Inventory levels remain healthy at 21 months, and developers maintain strong balance sheets. The FY27 launch pipeline of Rs 2 lakh crore supports expectations of continued 17% pre-sales growth.

Anuj Puri, Chairman of Anarock Property Consultants, noted that residential sales in Q1 2026 stood at approximately 1,01,675 units, reflecting a 7% QoQ decline but a healthy 9% YoY growth. Sales value reached INR 1.51 lakh crore. New project launches surged 26% YoY, pushing unsold inventory beyond 6.01 lakh units. “The MPC’s policy consistency is a stabilising buffer. Input costs are rising… but domestic consumer demand is fundamentally resilient,” Puri added.

Dharmendra Raichura, VP & Head of Finance at Ashar Group, said, “RBI’s decision to maintain the repo rate at 5.25% reflects a calibrated approach… Predictable borrowing costs support efficient project planning and timely execution, while buyers continue to benefit from stable lending rates and manageable EMIs.”

Rising geopolitical uncertainty has also paused some Middle Eastern investments in Indian housing, but the stable rate environment helps developers manage higher material costs and supports the sector’s growth story through 2026.

Overall, the RBI’s decision provides much-needed policy stability, enabling homebuyers to benefit from steady home loan rates while the industry absorbs new supply and maintains momentum.

Also Read: Housing sales momentum to continue as RBI holds repo rate

The post RBI Holds Repo Rate at 5.25%: Relief for Homebuyers Amid Geopolitical Pressures appeared first on Square Feat India.

However, a recent ruling by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai brings huge relief and shows that this fear may be overstated.

What Happened in This Case?

Vaibhav Vijay Sawant sold his residential flat in Andheri West, Mumbai, on 21st July 2016 for ₹5.50 crore. After indexation, he earned a long-term capital gain of ₹2,52,02,110. He invested the entire gain amount by booking two under-construction flats in the “Millionist-14” project by M/s. Aadinath Developers.

He received allotment letters in June 2016 and paid ₹2.60 crore to the builder — more than the capital gain. However, like many real estate projects, this one got badly delayed. There was no registered sale agreement, and possession was never given even after several years.

When his return was selected for scrutiny, the Income Tax Officer raised strong objections and issued notices. The AO disallowed the entire ₹2.52 crore deduction under Section 54, adding it back as taxable income. The main objection was:

“Mere allotment letter is not proof of purchase. No registered agreement. No possession. Hence, deduction not allowed.”

This is exactly why the headline says “Will You Get a Tax Notice?” — because this is how the department typically reacts in such cases.

The Final Relief – ITAT Order

Fortunately, the story did not end with the tax demand.

• The CIT(A) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.
• The Revenue challenged the order before ITAT Mumbai.
• On 20th May 2026, the ITAT bench of Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Shri Bijayananda Pruseth delivered the order in ITA No. 6105/Mum/2025, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.

Key Highlights of the ITAT Ruling

• Booking an under-construction flat through an allotment letter + substantial payment is sufficient to claim exemption under Section 54.
• Actual registration of agreement or physical possession is not mandatory.
• Investment in under-construction property qualifies as “purchase/construction” of a residential house.
• Delay in project completion due to reasons beyond the buyer’s control (common builder delays, regulatory issues) cannot be held against the buyer.
• The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court judgments, Calcutta High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court rulings, and CBDT Circulars 471 & 672.

The ITAT observed that in today’s real estate market, where delays are rampant, insisting on possession or registration within the time limit would make Section 54 unworkable for genuine homebuyers.

Important Takeaway for Homebuyers

Yes — selling an old flat and investing in an under-construction project without a registered agreement can attract a tax notice. But as this case shows, you can successfully defend your claim and win at the appellate level if you have proper documentation (allotment letter + proof of payment).

This ruling gives confidence to thousands of homebuyers who have booked under-construction flats but are yet to get possession.

Also Read: Income Tax Tribunal Rules: Redevelopment Gains Not Taxable for Housing Societies; Crucial Shield for Flat Owners

The post Sold Old Flat, Invested in Under-Construction Property But No Agreement – Will You Get a Tax Notice? appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Supreme Court, in its detailed 77-page judgment delivered on 5th May 2026 in the case of Alpha Corp Development Private Limited vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), overturned the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) order and strongly criticised GNIDA for its “persistent inaction and ineptitude” in monitoring the projects and recovering its dues.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• Corporate Veil Lifted: The Court held that the three subsidiary companies (ETIPL, Neo Multimedia Ltd, and Nishtha Software Pvt Ltd) were mere fronts of Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL). Development rights over the GNIDA-leased lands could validly be part of EIL’s insolvency resolution process.
• Penal Dues Waived: GNIDA has been barred from charging penal interest, time-extension penalties, or other punitive charges. It can recover only the principal dues, which it must recalculate and intimate to Alpha and Roma within two weeks.
• Buyers Fully Protected: Both successful resolution applicants — Alpha Corp and Roma Unicon — have committed to bearing GNIDA’s principal dues themselves. Homebuyers and allottees will not be burdened with any additional payments.
• Payment Schedule: The successful resolution applicants will clear GNIDA’s recalculated dues in 24 equated monthly instalments starting 7th July 2026, without any interest during this period.
• Project Restart: Construction work on the projects is to commence as per the approved resolution plans from 1st June 2026.
• Earth Copia (Gurugram): The Supreme Court clarified that the Gurugram project on freehold land was never under dispute and Alpha’s resolution plan for it stands fully restored.

The Court noted that GNIDA had failed to monitor the projects despite clear obligations under the lease deeds, issued sporadic notices, and even attempted to cancel allotments in violation of the Supreme Court’s status quo order.

Victory for Homebuyers

Representatives of homebuyer associations — Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association, UTOPIA (Earth TechOne), and Sapphire Patrons Independent Common Association — welcomed the verdict. Thousands of families who had invested their life savings and waited for nearly a decade will now get legal possession and registry of their units as sub-lessees.

The judgment aligns with the Uttar Pradesh government’s policy on stalled real estate projects and reinforces the principle that homebuyers’ interests must be protected in insolvency cases.

Senior Advocate representing the homebuyers’ associations said, “This is a historic win for homebuyers. After years of agony, justice has finally been delivered by the Supreme Court.”

With this order, the Supreme Court has once again sent a strong message that stalled real estate projects must be completed and innocent homebuyers cannot be made to suffer due to delays and lapses by authorities or developers.

Also Read: Here’s Why the Supreme Court Initiated a CBI Probe into DLF’s The Primus Project

The post Supreme Court Brings Massive Relief to Thousands of Greater Noida Homebuyers: Stalled Earth Projects to Resume Soon appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, passed on April 7, 2026 by Member-II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC006000000196093, involved buyers in the “Gaurav Samruddhi” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700009724) developed by Ravi Developments in Mira Bhayandar, Thane district.

MahaRERA’s Clear Stance on Group vs Individual Complaints

MahaRERA has consistently maintained through its guidelines (including Order No. 11 of 2019 and the official complaint filing portal) that:

• An aggrieved person must file a separate (individual) complaint when seeking personal or individual reliefs.
• Group complaints are entertained only for truly common reliefs, such as those under Section 7 (revocation of registration) & Section 8 (remaining projects after revocation) of the RERA Act, or for common amenities affecting the entire project.
• The Authority may, at its discretion, club multiple similar individual complaints for joint hearing, but it does not encourage mixed joint filings where individual prayers (like specific parking allotment, personal refunds, or interest calculations) are clubbed together.

In the present case, the Authority noted at the outset that the 11 complainants had filed a common complaint seeking a mix of common and individual reliefs. This made it “difficult for this Authority to ascertain which Complainant has purchased which parking” and to grant buyer-specific directions in the absence of clear, per-complainant documentary evidence.

The order explicitly referenced the earlier 2018 directive and MahaRERA’s procedural framework, highlighting that such joint filings often lead to procedural hurdles and partial or limited relief.

This approach aligns with recent MahaRERA observations in other matters, where collective grievances affecting a larger group of allottees are expected to be pursued through a registered Association of Allottees, Co-operative Housing Society, or with explicit authorisation from the majority of homebuyers, rather than by a small group acting in their individual capacity.

Background of the Gaurav Samruddhi Case

The flat buyers had earlier succeeded in a 2018 complaint before the then Chairperson of MahaRERA, which directed the developer to hand over possession by October 31, 2018, pay delay interest if applicable, and initiate society formation.

The buyers claimed they took “fit-out” possession in July 2018. However, even years later, the building lacked a formal Occupation Certificate (OC) from Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. They alleged missing basic amenities (reliable water supply, consistently working lifts, boundary wall), non-allotment of dedicated car parking despite payments, unpaid property taxes by the developer for the pre-possession period, and demands for additional charges.

Notably, the buyers themselves formed and registered the Gaurav Samruddhi CHS Ltd. in 2021 after the developer failed to do so, despite collecting society formation charges.

What the Order Granted and Rejected

After examining the pleadings, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, and written submissions (with the final hearing on June 24, 2025), the Authority held:

Granted:

• Direction to the developer (Ravi Developments) to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation within 30 days from the date of the order (i.e., by approximately May 7, 2026). No proof of OC having been received was placed on record.

Rejected:

• Fresh claims for delay interest (as buyers had admitted taking possession in July 2018, before the 2018 deadline).
• Compensation for mental agony/harassment under Section 18(3).
• Specific directions on dedicated car parking (due to lack of clarity in the joint filing).
• Refund of property taxes paid by buyers for the pre-possession period (buyers became liable after taking possession and occupying the flats).
• Directions regarding society formation (already done by buyers in 2021).
• Restraints on additional charges or GST on maintenance (society is now handling maintenance).

No costs were awarded to either side. The complainants were represented by Adv. Godfrey Pimenta, while the respondent was represented by Adv. Makrand Raut.

Implications for Homebuyers Across Maharashtra

This order serves as a reminder to homebuyers that:

• For personal reliefs (interest calculation per flat, specific parking, individual refunds, or accounting of payments), filing individual complaints is safer and more effective.
• For project-wide or common issues (such as obtaining OC, major common amenities, or revocation-related matters), approaching through a registered Co-operative Housing Society or Association of Allottees (with majority backing) carries more weight.
• Joint complaints mixing individual and common prayers risk partial rejection or procedural complications.

Homebuyers in similar delayed or lapsed projects are advised to:

• Coordinate through their registered society for common reliefs like OC and handover of accounts.
• File fresh individual complaints where personal monetary claims (interest, compensation) remain unaddressed.
• Consider appealing the order before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) within the stipulated 60 days, if they believe stronger grounds exist for interest or compensation.

The ruling comes at a time when MahaRERA continues to handle thousands of complaints annually, emphasising procedural discipline to ensure efficient redressal while protecting the rights of genuine homebuyers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Rejects Joint Complaints by Homebuyers Seeking Individual Reliefs appeared first on Square Feat India.

A recent Bombay High Court judgment in Velantine Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 35377 of 2025, pronounced on December 23, 2025) serves as a compelling case study. This ruling highlights the delicate balance between protecting developers’ contractual rights and ensuring timely conveyance of property to housing societies. Let’s delve into what residual rights entail, using this case to illustrate their real-world implications for homebuyers.

Understanding Developer’s Residual Rights

In large-scale real estate projects, developers often acquire land and secure approvals for layouts that span multiple buildings or phases. Residual rights typically include:

• Unused FSI and TDR: FSI determines how much built-up area can be constructed on a plot. TDR allows developers to transfer development potential from one site to another. If not fully utilized in initial phases, developers can retain these for future expansions.
• Retained Land Portions: Agreements with buyers may explicitly reserve small parcels (e.g., for amenities or additional structures) to the developer, preventing immediate full conveyance.
• Phased Development Clauses: Contracts under MOFA often stipulate that conveyance (transfer of title) occurs only after the entire project is complete, allowing developers flexibility in evolving plans.

These rights are rooted in agreements executed under Section 4 of MOFA, which mandates that conveyances align with buyer-developer contracts. However, they must comply with statutory timelines and government resolutions, such as the Maharashtra Government’s Resolution dated June 22, 2018, which guides deemed conveyances in multi-building layouts.

While residual rights enable efficient urban development and prevent underutilization of land, they can frustrate homebuyers who seek clear title to their properties sooner. Delays in conveyance can affect resale value, access to loans, or even basic society management.

Case Study: The Velantine Properties Dispute

The Velantine Properties case revolves around a 27,116.30 sq. mtr. plot in Mumbai, subdivided into plots A through G for multi-storied buildings. Sub-Plot A (6,536.30 sq. mtrs.) housed buildings for three co-operative societies, including Respondent No. 3 (comprising Wings A, B, C, and F of Building A-2).

• The Developer’s Stance: Velantine Properties, the promoter, argued that agreements with flat buyers (e.g., a sample dated July 31, 1999) reserved rights to develop residual areas using TDR. Specifically, they claimed entitlement to retain 146 sq. mtrs. for future construction. They offered a draft joint conveyance in February 2025, covering 43.21% of the land for Respondent No. 3, but insisted on limiting it to plinth and appurtenant areas as per the 2018 Government Resolution (Clause B(2)), given TDR usage.
• The Society’s Application: Registered in 2004, Respondent No. 3 demanded conveyance in 2025, citing developer delays. They filed for unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA, seeking 3,215.19 sq. mtrs. (49.19% based on built-up area, including 5% amenity space). The District Deputy Registrar granted this on October 16, 2025, rejecting the retention claim for lack of evidence.
• High Court’s Intervention: Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla quashed the order, remanding it for fresh consideration. Key reasons:
  • Contractual recitals supported the developer’s retention of 146 sq. mtrs. for phased development.
  • The 2018 Resolution mandates conveyance based on plinth/appurtenant areas in TDR-utilized layouts (Clause B(2)).
  • In multi-society setups where only one applies (as here), an independent architect from the authority’s panel must measure the land (Clause B(3)) to resolve disputes fairly.
  • Clauses postponing conveyance until “full development” are invalid, overriding developer arguments of prematurity (citing Lok Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025).

The court emphasized that deemed conveyance must align with MOFA agreements and cannot exceed what the developer agreed to convey. It stayed its order for six weeks, preventing immediate registration.

This ruling underscores that while developers cannot indefinitely delay conveyance (statutory four-month timeline under MOFA Rule 9 applies), their residual rights— if clearly reserved—must be verified independently to avoid prejudice.

How Residual Rights Impact Homebuyers

For homebuyers, residual rights can be a double-edged sword:

• Positive Aspects: They enable larger, phased projects with better amenities, potentially increasing property value over time. In the Velantine case, retained land could lead to additional facilities benefiting all societies.
• Challenges and Risks:
  • Delays in Ownership Transfer: Buyers may wait years for full title, as seen here where conveyance was demanded two decades after society registration. This can hinder society autonomy, like managing common areas or securing redevelopment.
  • Disputes Over Area: Without independent verification, societies might receive less than entitled, or developers could over-retain, leading to litigation. The court’s remand highlights how discrepancies (built-up vs. plinth area) fuel conflicts.
  • Financial Implications: Uncertain title affects mortgage approvals, resale, or insurance. In Mumbai’s competitive market, such delays can erode buyer confidence.
  • Legal Recourse: MOFA empowers buyers via deemed conveyance, but as this case shows, courts will protect developer rights if substantiated, potentially prolonging resolutions.

Homebuyers should scrutinize agreements for residual clauses, insist on clear timelines, and form societies early to invoke MOFA protections.

Broader Implications for Real Estate

This judgment reinforces MOFA’s buyer-centric ethos while safeguarding developers’ investments in phased projects. It aligns with precedents like M/s. S & M Enterprises vs. The Palazzo Building No. 1 CHSL (2022), limiting conveyance to proportionate shares in incomplete layouts, and M/s. ACME Enterprises vs. Deputy Registrar (2023), clarifying that title disputes belong in civil suits, not summary proceedings.

For the industry, it signals the need for transparent contracts and adherence to government guidelines. Regulators might push for stricter enforcement of independent assessments to minimize disputes.

In conclusion, developer’s residual rights are essential for sustainable urban growth but must not undermine homebuyers’ security. The Velantine Properties case exemplifies how courts are striking this balance, ensuring fairness through evidence-based, impartial processes. As Mumbai’s skyline evolves, informed buyers and ethical developers will be key to harmonious real estate ecosystems.

Also Read: MahaRERA asks Developers to mediate with Developers of lapsed housing projects

The post Developer’s Residual Rights in a Real Estate Project and How it Impacts Homebuyers appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order came from Justice Amit Borkar in a writ petition filed by Vidya Omprakash Bhartia & Ors., who were forced to approach the court after the State sat on their refund request for nine long years.

What Was the Case About?

• The petitioners had prepared a deed of conveyance in 2005 involving Birla VXL Ltd. as vendor.
• The deed was never executed, but stamp duty of ₹21 lakh had been paid.
• The petitioners applied for a refund on 7 June 2006.
• The State revenue authorities:
  • sent more than 25 repeated communications,
  • kept asking for documents already supplied,
  • and finally rejected the refund in April 2015.
• The reason for rejection:
  The stamp duty amount came from the account of Indian Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd., not from the petitioners personally.

The Court said this reasoning was legally unsustainable, because the law focuses on who bore the burden of the duty, not on whose bank account it came from — especially when the company had given No-Objection and an indemnity bond.

HC: “Public authority must act with fairness, not make citizens run office to office”

Justice Borkar noted the long and unnecessary delay, stating:

• The petitioners complied with all requisitions.
• The authorities failed in their statutory duty.
• There was wrongful retention of money.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Harshit Harish Jain vs State of Maharashtra (2025), where similar refund delays were criticised and interest was awarded.

Court’s Directions

The High Court passed the following binding directions:

1. Refund with Interest

• State must refund ₹21 lakh.
• Along with 6% simple interest from 7 June 2006 till payment.
• If the State delays beyond 6 weeks, the interest increases to 12%.

2. Mandatory Circular Within 8 Weeks

The most important part of the judgment — with wider public impact — is:

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department must issue a circular within eight weeks, prescribing a uniform and reasonable time frame for disposing stamp duty refund applications under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

This circular will be binding on all stamp authorities in the state.

3. Strict Adherence

All authorities under the Stamp Act must follow the time schedule once the circular is issued.
This aims to eliminate arbitrary delays, repeated queries, and harassment of applicants.

Why This Matters for the Common Citizen

Stamp duty refunds are often stuck for months or even years due to:

• lost files,
• repeated document requests,
• lack of clarity on timelines,
• no accountability.

This judgment forces the State to:

• Set a clear refund timeline (likely 4–8 weeks),
• Follow a uniform procedure across Maharashtra,
• Stop asking for endless documents,
• Avoid arbitrary refusals.

Homebuyers, businesses, and property investors who pay stamp duty on agreements that fall through will now have predictability and legal protection.

Also Read: Stamp Duty extension to boost Real Estate

The post Court Asks Govt To Fix Time Frame For Stamp Duty Refund 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.

What is Stamp Duty Adjudication?
When a person buys property, one of the most significant costs—apart from the purchase price—is stamp duty, a tax paid to the government to validate the property transaction. In some cases, there may be uncertainty about the correct amount of stamp duty payable, especially when agreements are complex or involve special clauses. To resolve this, buyers or citizens must apply for adjudication, where the Collector of Stamps assesses and determines the exact stamp duty liability.

How the System Works
The newly launched web application simplifies this process in the following ways:

1. Citizens can fill out the adjudication application form online.
2. After submission, they can download an acknowledgement of the details entered.
3. Physical documents still need to be submitted to the office of the concerned Collector of Stamps.
4. The Collector will then process and decide the case.
5. Applicants can check the status of their adjudication case online, without multiple office visits.

Impact for Homebuyers
This initiative is particularly relevant for homebuyers in cities like Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur, where property transactions are frequent and stamp duty amounts can be substantial. By moving a significant part of the adjudication process online, the state government aims to reduce uncertainty, improve efficiency, and bring more transparency to property deals.

This digital step will not only save time for citizens but also reduce congestion in stamp offices, thereby improving the overall ease of doing property transactions in Maharashtra.

Also Read: Can Stamp Duty Cut Boost Homebuying?

The post Stamp Duty Adjudication Goes Digital: Maharashtra Citizens Can Apply Online appeared first on Square Feat India.

The RBI has also revised GDP growth upwards to 6.8% and projected inflation at a lower 2.6%, creating a stronger macroeconomic backdrop. This balance of growth and stability is expected to instill confidence across industries, with housing at the forefront.

Industry Reactions

Sukhraj Nahar, President, CREDAI-MCHI
“The stability in lending rates ensures EMIs remain predictable, giving comfort to existing borrowers and encouraging first-time buyers. With affordability central to the MMR region, the festive season presents the perfect time for buyers to act.”

Piyush Bothra, Co-Founder & CFO, Square Yards
“While another cut would have added momentum, the case for further easing remains strong. Lower home loan rates alongside the festive season are already driving a visible pickup in housing demand.”

Vimal Nadar, National Director & Head of Research, Colliers India
“Banks are yet to fully transmit the earlier 100-bps cut, which should happen during this festive season. Combined with GST rationalisation on cement, developers have more room to offer deals — good news for homebuyers in affordable and mid-income segments.”

Amit Prakash, Co-Founder & CBO, Urban Money
“The pause allows space for the impact of past actions to play out. For borrowers, the environment is improving with banks gradually reducing lending rates, helping sustain household consumption and credit demand.”

Amit Goyal, MD, India Sotheby’s International Realty
“Steady borrowing costs help sustain affordability and confidence, particularly as demand for larger, lifestyle-driven homes grows. For investors too, predictability in monetary policy reinforces India’s appeal.”

Anuj Puri, Chairman, ANAROCK Group
“Holding the repo rate at 5.5% keeps EMIs steady but doesn’t directly improve affordability. However, GST rate cuts on cement can reduce home prices by 1–1.5%, saving buyers ₹1–3 lakh, especially in affordable and mid-segment housing.”

Amit Bhagat, CEO & MD, ASK Property Fund
“India remains the fastest-growing economy globally. The RBI’s stance, along with reforms like GST streamlining and infrastructure financing, is expected to maintain positive sentiment in real estate.”

Dr. Samantak Das, Chief Economist & Head – Research and REIS, JLL
“The RBI is signaling confidence in India’s fundamentals. Stability in capital costs ensures organic growth for housing while providing predictability for commercial real estate, which is critical for large-scale investment.”

Manju Yagnik, Vice Chairperson, Nahar Group & Senior VP, NAREDCO Maharashtra
“Predictable EMIs give buyers the confidence to act, especially during the festive season. Combined with GST rationalisation, affordability is improving — a strong enabler for demand across both affordable and premium segments.”

Dharmendra Raichura, VP & Head of Finance, Ashar Group
“The steady repo rate environment helps first-time buyers with manageable EMIs while giving developers the clarity needed for efficient planning and sustained investment.”

What This Means for Homebuyers

• No EMI hike: Predictability in home loan repayments keeps affordability intact.
• Festive advantage: Discounts, GST cuts on cement, and stable financing make this season ideal for home purchase.
• Shift in demand: While premium and mid-segment housing continue to grow, GST relief could revive affordable housing demand.

Also Read: RBI Repo Rate Hike: Real Estate Sector Voices for Stability

The post RBI Keeps Repo Rate at 5.5%: What It Means for Your Home Loan EMIs This Festive Season appeared first on Square Feat India.

Lower Daily Expenses, Higher Savings for Families

The shift of many items to lower 5% and 18% GST slabs means essential products like packaged foods, medicines, stationery, and IT devices will cost less. This directly reduces monthly household expenses, giving families more breathing room to save for bigger investments like property.

Industry voices say this rationalisation will underpin stronger domestic consumption. “The GST cut to 5% or Nil on healthy packaged foods such as paneer, butter, milk, and dry fruits will accelerate consumption in rural and Tier-II markets,” said Aman Choudhary, Executive Director, Anmol Industries Limited.

Boost to Education and Healthcare Affordability

The reforms have exempted school essentials like notebooks, pencils, erasers, and reduced taxes on sports equipment and learning kits. Experts believe this will ease pressure on families with school-going children. Similarly, reducing GST on 33 life-saving medicines and diagnostic kits to 0% will make healthcare more affordable.

“Exempting health insurance in totality is a milestone in public healthcare. Hospitals will now be able to invest more in infrastructure, making cutting-edge care more inclusive,” said Dr. Richa Rai, CEO, Heritage Hospitals.

Relief for Homebuyers: Lower Input Costs in Real Estate

One of the biggest takeaways for the housing market is the reduction of GST on construction materials like electrical goods, transformers, and cables from 18% to 5%. This translates into lower construction costs for developers, which can be passed on to buyers through discounts and festive offers.

“We are optimistic that the recent GST reduction will boost property purchases and overall demand. With the festive season fast approaching, the tax cut has come at an opportune time,” said Vijay Jain, Managing Director, Star Estate.

Combined with stable home loan interest rates and attractive schemes from developers, buyers stand to benefit from both affordability and choice.

Technology, Power, and Renewable Energy to Become Cheaper

The cut from 28% to 18% on IT and consumer electronics will make gadgets, laptops, and digital devices more affordable—important for modern households. For the power and renewable sectors, cheaper solar panels, inverters, and grid equipment mean lower energy costs for homes in the long run.

“Rationalising GST slabs for solar equipment will boost cost competitiveness and accelerate India’s switch to renewable energy,” said Vinod Sharma, Director, Joint Solar.

Why This Matters for Homebuyers

For families planning to purchase homes this festive season, the GST cut is a double advantage:

1. Lower living costs free up more savings.
2. Reduced housing input costs could lead to better deals in the property market.

As industries anticipate stronger demand, experts believe the property market will witness a significant surge in bookings and site visits, making this festive season a golden opportunity for buyers.

Also Read: Cheaper Cement, Stable GST on Homes: What It Means for Homebuyers

The post GST Cuts to Lower Costs for Families, Make Homes More Affordable This Festive Season appeared first on Square Feat India.