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.