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 case revolves around allottee Shreeram Deepchand Chaurasia versus developer NHK Developers LLP. The Tribunal’s order in Misc. Application No. 735 of 2025 (for condonation of delay) in Appeal No. 335462 of 2024, pronounced on February 27, 2026 (reserved on February 17, 2026), highlights a clear mismatch between the relief sought and the relief granted by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Background of the Dispute

The homebuyer originally filed Complaint No. CC006000000001499 with MahaRERA on October 26, 2017, invoking Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. He sought a full refund of the amount paid along with interest due to project delays/defaults, choosing not to continue with the project or take possession.

However, on January 22, 2018, MahaRERA passed an order granting possession of the flat along with interest for the delay — a relief the allottee had never prayed for. This created a fundamental mismatch: the Authority imposed possession (which the buyer did not want) while ignoring the primary claim for refund.

Unwilling to accept possession, the allottee pursued further remedies. He filed a second complaint (No. CC006000000262044) on July 24, 2022, again seeking refund with interest. After hearings, MahaRERA reserved orders on February 15, 2023, but on June 23, 2023, dismissed it as not maintainable on grounds of res judicata (matter already decided). The Authority directed its Secretary to expedite execution of the 2018 possession order.

Subsequent proceedings led to an impugned order around July 4–12, 2023, where MahaRERA reiterated that the matter was already decided and again pushed for execution of the possession order, effectively closing the door on the refund claim.

Appeal to MahaREAT and the Delay Issue

Aggrieved by what he described as a “miscarriage of justice,” the allottee filed an appeal before MahaREAT challenging the 2023 MahaRERA orders. However, the appeal was filed beyond the statutory 60-day limitation period prescribed under Section 44(2) of the RERA Act.

To overcome this, the allottee moved Misc. Application No. 735/2025 seeking condonation of delay. The developer (NHK Developers LLP) failed to appear despite opportunities and filed no reply, leading to ex-parte proceedings.

Tribunal’s Reasoning and Key Findings

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (A) Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande carefully examined the record and submissions by the applicant’s advocate, Mr. Swapnil M. Utangale.

The Tribunal observed:

• MahaRERA’s 2018 order granted possession when refund was explicitly sought, failing to address or grant the actual relief prayed for.
• Subsequent refund claims were wrongly dismissed on res judicata grounds while insisting on execution of the mismatched possession order.
• This constituted a miscarriage of justice, causing irreparable prejudice to the allottee if not rectified.
• There was no evidence of mala fides, dilatory tactics, or deliberate delay by the allottee. The developer suffered no prejudice from condonation.
• The allottee would face grave injustice if the appeal were barred on technical grounds of delay.

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Tribunal stressed a liberal, justice-oriented approach to “sufficient cause” for condonation:

• Substantial justice must prevail over hyper-technicalities.
• Refusing condonation could defeat a meritorious matter at the threshold.
• No presumption exists that delay is deliberate; litigants do not benefit from late filing.
• Courts exist to remove injustice, not legalize it on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal noted that while the application did not explain every day’s delay, a pedantic approach was inappropriate. Ends of justice demanded condonation to allow the appeal to proceed on merits.

Final Order

On February 27, 2026, the Tribunal passed the following:

1. Misc. Application No. 735 of 2025 (Delay) is allowed.
2. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

With the delay condoned, the main appeal challenging MahaRERA’s orders now stands admitted and will be heard on merits. The Tribunal’s intervention opens the door for the homebuyer to potentially secure the refund with interest he originally sought, correcting what the bench described as an injustice stemming from mismatched reliefs.

This ruling reinforces RERA’s pro-consumer intent and the Appellate Tribunal’s role in ensuring equitable outcomes, even when procedural hurdles arise.

Also Read: TATA housing directed to refund money to homebuyer

The post Homebuyer Sought Refund, MahaRERA Awarded Possession with Interest: Tribunal Steps In to Undo Injustice appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), under Chairperson Manoj Saunik, passed the consolidated order on January 16, 2026 (hearing held November 13, 2025), in two complaints concerning the lapsed project (Registration No. P51800010901). Originally promised completion by March 31, 2016 (revised to July 31, 2019, extended to January 30, 2021), the project has no Occupancy Certificate and lapsed on January 31, 2021.

Complainants included:

• Rajiv Dayal, who filed Complaint No. CC0060000000210009 on February 13, 2022, for five proposed commercial units (B-1201 to B-1205) allotted via letters dated January 18, 2010. Total consideration exceeded Rs 3.7 crore, with significant payments made.
• Ashok Narang and Jyoti K. Narang, who filed Complaint No. CC0060000000344283 on February 10, 2023, for commercial unit B-401 (approx. 468 sq ft), allotted June 18, 2010, with Rs 49 lakh paid by July 2010 toward about Rs 87.5 lakh.

Buyers alleged the developer accepted funds for commercial spaces, later converted the project to residential (built only up to 11 floors), mortgaged the property (including their units), and failed to execute registered Agreements for Sale or deliver possession.

Advocates Involved Representing the complainants: Advocate Prakash Rohira (for Rajiv Dayal) and Advocate Twishi Pant (for Ashok and Jyoti Narang). For respondents (Parthesh Developers, Nirav Shah, Monica Shah, and Ganga Jamna Sangam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.): Abhinesh Yadav and Sachin Chokhani (society secretary).

The developer and society countered that no valid contracts existed — the redevelopment agreement with the society was executed only on February 23, 2011, more than a year after the 2010 allotment letters. They argued the letters were premature/invalid, no commercial units were finalized, and no privity or liability for interest/compensation arose.

After arguments and written submissions (due November 25, 2025), MahaRERA allowed the complaints for refund but rejected interest and most other reliefs (e.g., plan-change compensation, mental agony, penalties beyond directives).

Why No Interest — The Core Lesson The Authority granted full principal refund (payable in one installment within 60 days) but explicitly denied interest, stating in Para 12: the transactions “have not progressed beyond the issuance of an allotment letter and initial payment.” No registered Agreement for Sale was executed — a must under Section 13 of the RERA Act, 2016, to invoke statutory interest under Section 18 (typically SBI MCLR + 2%).

The decisive factor: allotments occurred before the developer gained legal authority via the 2011 redevelopment agreement. MahaRERA observed that without such prior rights, the developer “should not have proceeded with the issuance of allotment letters… nor accepted any payments.” Yet payments were accepted, receipts issued, and funds utilized for years without refunds or alternatives. Allotment letters (signed, with payment proofs like bank statements and SBI certificates on record) were admissible as transaction evidence but fell short of full RERA-compliant agreements.

Rajiv Dayal must pay additional filing fees (Rs 20,000 for four extra units, within 10 days). The developer must seek project extension within 30 days or face Section 63 penalties.

This case reinforces a critical real estate principle in Maharashtra: in redevelopment scenarios, buyers should wait for a registered development agreement between developer and society before booking or paying — premature allotments may yield principal refunds on payment proof but often forfeit interest claims due to the preliminary nature of the transaction.

The project remains lapsed, leaving buyers to recover principal only — a costly reminder of unchecked early bookings.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Homebuyers’ Refund Plea as They Relinquished Property to Lender

The post Don’t Book Before the Developer-Society Deal is Sealed: Khar Homebuyers Paid the Price with No Interest on Refund appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a major relief to a distressed homebuyer, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled against the developer of the Viijcon Cellandine project in Pune for failing to deliver possession on time. The regulatory body has ordered a full refund along with interest, marking a strong stance in favor of genuine allottees suffering from project delays.

The Project and Its Delays

The project, registered under MahaRERA No. P52100004315 by Viijcon Properties, was initially supposed to be completed by 31st December 2017. However, the developer revised the deadline to 31st January 2021, and later extended it again to 31st March 2024. As of the order date (22 May 2025), no Occupancy Certificate (OC) has been received, leaving homebuyers in limbo.

The Complaints

Four separate complaints were heard by MahaRERA in a virtual session on 24th April 2025. The complainants included individuals and one association, all of whom alleged non-delivery, non-refund, or financial loss due to delays:

1. Complaint 1 – Involved a business barter for a flat against unpaid dues for construction services. It was dismissed due to absence of a clear promoter-allottee relationship and lack of documentation.
2. Complaint 2 – A buyer who paid ₹7.3 lakh and never received a flat or registered agreement. This too was dismissed due to missing documents.
3. Complaint 3 – An association that had lent ₹1.5 crore to the developer under a high-interest agreement (25% p.a.) and was allotted flats as collateral. MahaRERA deemed this a money lending dispute, not a homebuyer issue, and dismissed it.
4. Complaint 4 – Royal Dsilva, a homebuyer who had booked a flat in October 2017, paid ₹35 lakh (funded through IndiaBulls Housing Finance), and was promised possession by 31 July 2020. The project remains incomplete, and MahaRERA ruled in his favor.

MahaRERA’s Key Observations

• The developer violated Section 18 of the RERA Act, which mandates refund with interest if possession is delayed beyond the promised date.
• The flat purchaser had submitted a registered agreement dated 08.09.2017, clearly showing the agreed possession date as 31.07.2020.
• As no OC has been issued and the project has lapsed as of 31.03.2024, the authority found the developer in breach of contract.

The Final Order for Complaint 4

• The developer must refund the entire amount paid by the complainant (excluding taxes, stamp duty, and registration fees).
• Interest will be calculated from 1st August 2020 until the date of full payment, as per Rule 18 of MahaRERA Rules.
• The amount must be paid within 60 days of the order.
• A cancellation deed for the flat must be executed within 30 days of refund.
• The developer must also apply for an extension of the project registration within 30 days, or face penalties under Section 63 of the RERA Act.

Why This Order Matters for Homebuyers

This ruling sends a strong message that:

• Delays in possession without valid reason or documentation are not tolerated.
• Homebuyers with registered agreements have clear legal recourse under Section 18 of the RERA Act.
• MahaRERA will dismiss non-genuine complaints or those outside its jurisdiction, ensuring its platform is used effectively by real allottees.

Conclusion

The MahaRERA’s decision in this case highlights the importance of documentation, timely possession, and accountability from builders. It also reaffirms the authority’s role as a pro-homebuyer watchdog, ensuring that real estate transactions in Maharashtra remain transparent and fair. Homebuyers are encouraged to maintain proper paperwork and approach MahaRERA confidently in case of genuine grievances.

Also Read: MahaRERA suspends registration of 388 developers for not providing quarterly updates

The post MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Dispute

All three complainants had booked flats in Zeal Regency, a project registered under MahaRERA with Registration No. P99000003182. The original completion date was December 31, 2015, later extended to March 31, 2024. However, the project still lacks an Occupation Certificate (OC).

Details of the Complaints and MahaRERA’s Verdict

Observations by MahaRERA

• In Complaints 193927 and 209422, the agreements were executed before RERA came into force, but the Authority ruled that homebuyers are still entitled to a refund and interest based on actual payment records.
• For Complaint 197955, while the flat possession was granted per consent terms, the developer failed to deliver promised amenities, violating the sale agreement. MahaRERA ordered the developer to comply.
• The Authority noted discrepancies between the claimed payments and actual receipts, and made decisions based on verified records.
• Complaints for mental agony and legal costs were not directly addressed; complainants may approach the Adjudicating Officer for such relief.

Impact and Significance

This ruling highlights MahaRERA’s commitment to upholding buyer rights, even in cases where agreements pre-date RERA’s enactment. It also emphasizes the developer’s accountability not just for possession, but for delivering complete and promised amenities.

With ongoing concerns about delayed possession and lack of transparency in the real estate sector, this case reinforces the power of regulatory redressal for homebuyers in Maharashtra.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Orders Refunds and Reliefs to Homebuyers as Developer Delays OC and Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.