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.

Kanchan G. Rohira had signed a registered agreement for sale on January 9, 1977, with Nirmal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for Flat No. 15 in Building No. 11, Rani Sati Nagar, Malad. The total price was ₹26,000. She promptly paid ₹10,500 as advance — almost 40% of the cost — through cheques and received official receipts.

The agreement promised possession by May 30, 1977. But the builder never delivered. Internal disputes among the company’s directors led to a Company Petition in the Bombay High Court. Construction stalled. Years passed.

In September 1981, the builder suddenly sent a termination letter, forfeiting her entire ₹10,500 and claiming she had failed to pay the balance on time. Rohira immediately protested through her advocate. She offered to pay the remaining ₹15,500 — first ₹5,000 in November 1981, then the full balance in December 1981 — but the builder refused the cheques and informed her the flat had already been sold to someone else.

Undeterred, Rohira filed Suit No. 1642 of 1984 in the Bombay High Court seeking specific performance — that is, the actual delivery of the flat she had booked and paid for. During the pendency of the suit, she learnt the flat had been sold first to Ravi Overseas Corporation and then, in May 1986, to Suresh Bhagwandas Dhoot for ₹1,30,000. Dhoot took possession, shifted in, performed vastu shanti, got married from that address, transferred the society share certificate in his name, and lived there for decades.

The trial finally concluded in January 2010 — 26 years after the suit was filed. The single judge ruled that Rohira had always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount, and that the builder’s termination notice was illegal. However, citing the long passage of time and Dhoot’s long possession, the court exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and refused to hand over the flat. Instead, it awarded her ₹1,52,250 as damages (reflecting the increased market value) plus 6% interest, and ordered refund of her original ₹10,500 with 12% interest from the date of payment.

Both sides appealed. Rohira wanted her flat. Dhoot wanted the adverse findings against him set aside.

On April 2, 2026 — almost 49 years after she first paid the booking amount — a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Sandesh D. Patil) delivered its judgment. The court upheld the findings that Rohira was ready and willing and that the termination was illegal. It also clarified that Dhoot was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because the 1977 agreement, though registered, had not been properly entered in the required indexes under the Registration Act, so no constructive notice could be fastened on him.

Most importantly, the judges declined to interfere with the trial court’s refusal to grant specific performance. “It would not be proper to pass a decree thereby evicting the Defendant No.4 from the said flat which he is occupying since 1986,” the court observed.

After nearly half a century of litigation — from the booking in 1977, the suit in 1984, the trial in 2010, and the appeals decided today — Kanchan Rohira will not get the home she fought so hard for. But the High Court has confirmed the monetary decree in her favour: the refund of her hard-earned ₹10,500 with 12% interest from 1976-77, plus the damages awarded.

The interim status quo order has been extended by six weeks, giving her time to consider further appeal to the Supreme Court if she so desires.

For a generation of homebuyers who remember the 1970s housing boom in Mumbai, this judgment is both a victory for monetary justice and a sobering reminder of how long the wait for justice can be.

Also Read: Homebuyers Alert: MahaRERA Rejects Tharwani Ariana Deregistration Bid Amid Contradictions

The post After 49-Year Legal Battle, Mumbai Homebuyer Loses Dream Flat But Wins Refund With Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case, Appeal No. AT006000000154550 of 2023 (arising from MahaRERA Complaint No. CC006000000197059 of 2021), was pronounced on February 13, 2026, by a bench comprising Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Member – Judicial) and Dr. Ratnagopal Devara (Member – Administrative). The appeal was heard ex-parte as the respondents did not appear despite notices.

The appellants/homebuyers were Mr. Mohammed Saeed Ali Mullaji and Mrs. Fawziyah Mohammed Saeed Mullaji, residents of 303, Citi View, Plot No. L27/128, Near Canara Bank, Sector 30, Owe, Kharghar, Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410210.

The respondents/promoters were Onyx Builders and Mr. Zahid Iltiza Khan, with their address at 318, G.K. Estate, Near Deluxe Hotel, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070.

In July 2013, the homebuyers initially booked Flat No. 602 (925 sq.ft. on the 6th floor) in the promoter’s project “Onyx Aura”, located at CTS No. 177, Village Kurla-IV, L Ward, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070, for a total consideration of approximately ₹76.88 lakh. They paid ₹60 lakh as part-payment, and the promoter issued a letter of allotment dated 29.07.2013. No registered agreement for sale was ever executed, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

Construction made no progress for years. Later, the promoter proposed switching to another project, “Onyx Residency” (also at 318, G.K. Estate, Near Deluxe Hotel, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070), with a higher consideration of ₹1.50 crore. The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 19.06.2019, agreeing to adjust the earlier ₹60 lakh and accept the balance ₹90 lakh at possession. However, this project too stalled due to lack of necessary approvals since around 2016.

Feeling defrauded, the homebuyers filed a complaint with MahaRERA in 2021 seeking withdrawal from the project under Section 12 of RERA and refund with interest under Section 18.

In its impugned order dated 04.05.2023, MahaRERA directed full refund of the ₹60 lakh (which the promoter had accepted in conciliation) but denied interest from payment dates. Instead, it awarded interest only from 30.12.2021 (treated as the project’s default/completion date) till realization, citing the absence of a registered agreement for sale and thus no agreed possession date.

Challenging this, the homebuyers appealed to MahaREAT. Represented by Advocate Godfrey W. Pimenta, they argued that interest under Section 18 is an unqualified right starting from receipt of money, as defined in Section 2(za)(ii) of RERA and reinforced by Rule 19 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017.

MahaREAT agreed, setting aside the limitation on interest. The Tribunal held:

• The promoter contravened MOFA by accepting substantial advances without a registered agreement.
• Failure to deliver possession entitled the allottees to withdraw and claim refund with interest under Section 18.
• Interest is payable from the dates the promoter received the amounts (here, from July 2013) till realization, at State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2%.
• The allottee’s right is unconditional; the Authority cannot impose restrictions or shift the start date contrary to statute, even without a registered agreement or specified possession date.

The Tribunal partly modified the MahaRERA order:

• Upheld full refund of ₹60 lakh.
• Directed interest from respective payment dates till realization.

This ruling is a major boost for homebuyers in stalled or delayed projects, especially where promoters delay or avoid executing registered agreements. It clarifies that promoters cannot evade full interest liability by procedural lapses, ensuring compensation reflects the true period the buyer was deprived of their funds.

The order has been communicated to MahaRERA and the parties as per Section 44(4) of RERA.

Also Read: Parking Issue: Shift The Wall Orders MahaRERA

The post Homebuyers Entitled to Interest on Refund from Date of Payment Receipt, Not Project Default Date – Landmark Win in Withdrawal Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 923 of 2025 and 925 of 2025 (Stay), arising out of appeals filed by Rare Townships Pvt. Ltd., and was pronounced on 6 January 2026 by a bench comprising Justice S. S. Shinde (Chairperson) and Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member – Administrative).

Background of the Dispute

The dispute concerns a long-delayed residential project in Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai, where homebuyers Mitul Harakchand Gada and Vinal Gada had booked flats as far back as 2012. An Agreement for Sale was executed on 2 November 2015, fixing the possession date as 31 December 2018.

When possession was not delivered even after the stipulated date, the buyers approached MahaRERA in July 2019, seeking refund of the amounts paid along with interest and compensation.

MahaRERA’s Order

By an order dated 9 September 2025, MahaRERA partly allowed the complaints and directed the promoter to:

• Refund the entire amount paid by the allottees
• Pay interest on the refunded amount
• Complete payment within 30 days
• Grant the promoter limited benefit of the COVID-19 moratorium period, as per MahaRERA notifications

Aggrieved by this order, the promoter filed appeals before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal, along with applications seeking a stay on execution of the refund direction.

Deposits Made Pursuant to High Court Orders

A critical factor in the Tribunal’s decision was that the promoter had already deposited 100% of the ordered amount, in compliance with directions issued earlier by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 7636 and 7637 of 2021.

Pursuant to the High Court’s orders:

• Over ₹3.30 crore was deposited
• The amount was transferred via NEFT to MahaRERA
• The High Court had directed that the money remain with the Regulatory Authority and be subject to final outcome of the proceedings

This meant that the buyers’ refund amount was fully secured.

Arguments by the Promoter

The promoter argued that:

• If execution of the refund order was not stayed, the appeals would become infructuous
• The delay in possession was covered by force majeure clauses in the Agreement for Sale
• MahaRERA failed to independently examine contractual terms and relied mechanically on earlier orders
• Since the full amount was already deposited, buyers would not suffer prejudice if disbursement was deferred

Arguments by the Homebuyers

The allottees strongly opposed the stay, pointing out that:

• They have been waiting for refunds since 2019
• They continue to pay EMIs on home loans
• The possession date had expired well before the COVID-19 period
• The promoter obtained repeated stays and prolonged litigation
• The deposited amount should be released immediately, with interest

They also sought directions that interest for the post-deposit period and statutory charges such as stamp duty be included.

Tribunal’s Key Observations

After reviewing the record, the Tribunal made several crucial observations:

• The entire refund amount is already deposited, securing the buyers’ claim
• The flats were booked in 2012, and possession was due in 2018
• Homebuyers have been deprived of both homes and money for several years
• Keeping buyer funds locked indefinitely while appeals are pending would be unfair and inequitable
• At the same time, the promoter’s arguments on force majeure and contractual extensions require full adjudication at the appeal stage

The Conditional Relief: Refund with a Reversal Clause

Striking a balance between competing equities, the Tribunal passed a middle-path order:

• Homebuyers are allowed to withdraw the refund amount deposited with MahaRERA
• However, they must file an undertaking stating that:
  • If the promoter succeeds in the appeal
  • The buyers will return the withdrawn amount along with interest to the Tribunal
• The promoter is protected from any further recovery beyond the amount already deposited

In effect, the Tribunal ensured immediate liquidity relief to buyers, while safeguarding the promoter’s rights in case the appeal succeeds.

Why This Order Matters

This ruling is significant because it:

• Recognises the financial distress of long-waiting homebuyers
• Avoids rendering developer appeals meaningless due to irreversible execution
• Introduces the concept of “conditional refund” in RERA litigation
• Signals that refund orders are not always final until appeals are decided
• May influence future cases where large sums are deposited pending appeal

For homebuyers, the message is clear: refunds can be accessed, but they may not be permanent. For developers, the order reinforces that statutory deposits can shield against coercive recovery, even while buyers get interim relief.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Rejects Developer’s Appeal Over Delay in Filing

The post Refund Allowed — But Not Final: Homebuyers Must Repay If Builder Wins Appeal appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a landmark ruling that brings much-needed clarity and hope to homebuyers across Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has affirmed that a registered Agreement for Sale is not essential for seeking relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This decision, pronounced on December 19, 2025, in Appeal No. AT06/00733 of 2025, underscores that documents like allotment letters, payment receipts, and correspondence can form a valid contract enforceable under RERA, even for pre-RERA bookings. For countless homebuyers stuck in delayed projects without formal agreements, this verdict is a beacon: your rights are protected, and you can demand refunds with interest from the date of payment, not just from delayed possession dates.

The case revolves around two Mumbai-based residents, Krupa Samir Kapadia (31, a consultant) and Pooja Samir Kapadia (35, an Intellectual Property lawyer), both residing at Walkeshwar. In November 2012, they booked two adjacent flats – Flat No. 503 in Pooja’s name and Flat No. 504 in Krupa’s name – in Phase V, Building No. 17 of the “Lake Riveira” project (Wings A and B) developed by Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd. The project, located at Kharwai Gaon, Badlapur (East), Thane district, was registered with MahaRERA under No. P51700001928. Each flat measured 650 sq. ft. carpet area and was priced at Rs. 13,00,000, making the total consideration Rs. 26,00,000 for both.

At the time of booking, the Kapadias paid 75% of the amount upfront – Rs. 9,75,000 per flat, totaling Rs. 19,50,000 – as acknowledged in an allotment letter dated November 11, 2012. The balance was to be paid upon possession. The developer, Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Hemant Agarwal (office at Dadar West), assured possession by September 2014. A follow-up letter from the developer dated March 30, 2013, further promised 24% per annum interest if possession was delayed beyond 18 months from October 2014, effectively setting an implied deadline of April 2016.

However, no registered Agreement for Sale was ever executed, despite the substantial payment. The project faced repeated delays: the proposed completion date was initially October 30, 2017, extended to December 31, 2019, and then to December 30, 2021. As of 2025, the project remains incomplete, with no Occupation Certificate (OC) issued. The developer cited a stay order from the Municipal Corporation and potential insolvency proceedings under the National Company Law Tribunal as reasons, but the Tribunal dismissed these as not qualifying as “force majeure” under RERA Section 6, which limits such excuses to natural calamities like floods or earthquakes.

Frustrated after over a decade of waiting, the Kapadias issued a legal notice on February 15, 2023, demanding cancellation and refund with interest. Receiving no response, they filed Complaint No. CC006000000395534 with MahaRERA on May 4, 2023. They sought refund of Rs. 19,50,000 with interest from November 2012, plus Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and lost opportunities in finding alternative housing.

MahaRERA’s Chairperson, in an order dated May 29, 2025, allowed the complaint partially. Recognizing the payments and delays, it permitted withdrawal under RERA Section 18 and ordered the refund within 60 days. However, interest was granted only from November 1, 2017 – the project’s declared completion date on the MahaRERA website – not from the payment dates. No compensation was awarded, as the authority noted the absence of a specific possession date in the allotment letter.

Aggrieved by the interest start date, the Kapadias appealed to MREAT, represented by Advocate Bruno Castellino. The developer, defended by Advocate Khushnumah Banerjee, argued that without a committed possession date or a formal agreement, no delay existed, and the allotment letter was flawed (issued initially in Krupa and Anita Samir Kapadia’s names, not Pooja’s). They also claimed the March 2013 letter was merely an offer, not a binding promise.

In a detailed 22-page judgment authored by Member (Administrative) Shrikant M. Deshpande and concurred by Chairperson S.S. Shinde, MREAT partly allowed the appeal. Key findings:

• Valid Contract Without Registered Agreement: Examining the allotment letter, payment receipts, and March 2013 letter, the Tribunal held they fulfill the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requirements – offer, acceptance, and consideration. The documents identify the project, flats, consideration, and payments, forming a “concluded contract.” Discrepancies in names were overlooked, as receipts and correspondence confirmed the sale to both sisters. The developer did not dispute the signatures or payments.
• RERA’s Retroactive Application: Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2021), the Tribunal affirmed RERA’s retroactive nature for ongoing projects. Since “Lake Riveira” was registered post-2016 but booked in 2012 under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) regime, RERA protections apply, allowing enforcement of pre-RERA documents.
• Possession Date and Delay: Even without an explicit date, the March 2013 letter implies October 2014. Alternatively, per Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018), a reasonable time is three years from booking – November 2015. The ongoing incompletion constitutes delay, entitling relief under RERA Section 18.
• Interest from Payment Date: Overturning MahaRERA, interest must start from November 11, 2012, as per RERA Section 2(za) and Supreme Court precedents like Experion Developers v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022) and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure v. Govindan Raghavan (2019). The rate is SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2%. Refund deadline: 30 days from the order (by January 18, 2026), with penal interest thereafter.
• No Compensation: The Rs. 25 lakh claim for mental agony was not granted, as the judgment focused on refund and interest as primary remedies.

This ruling is a game-changer for homebuyers. It clarifies that developers cannot hide behind the lack of a registered agreement to deny accountability. If you’ve paid significant amounts and hold proof like allotment letters or receipts, you can approach MahaRERA for refunds with interest from Day One – even for old projects. As the Tribunal emphasized, RERA safeguards consumers by regulating the sector retroactively, ensuring transparency and fairness. Homebuyers in similar situations should gather their documents and consult legal experts promptly. For Siddhitech’s buyers in “Lake Riveira,” this could open doors for collective action.

The developer has not challenged the original MahaRERA order, implying acceptance of the refund obligation. With insolvency looming, affected allottees should monitor proceedings closely.

Also Read: Possession Without an Agreement for Sale? MahaRERA Cracks Down on Builder

The post A Registered Agreement for Sale Is NOT Mandatory for RERA Relief appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Heart of the Matter: Delayed Possession and Homebuyer Rights

The case involves Mr. Mitul Shah and Hemalini H. Shah, who purchased a flat in the “INDIABULLS SKY FOREST -A3” project back in 2015. As per their agreement for sale, the developer had promised possession of the flat by December 31, 2018, with a grace period extending to September 30, 2019. However, the project faced significant delays, with the completion date on MahaRERA’s website being subsequently revised to September 30, 2023. Despite obtaining a part occupation certificate on April 20, 2022, covering the subject flat, possession was not handed over as promised.

Aggrieved by these delays, the homebuyers approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), seeking a refund of their paid amount of Rs. 2,18,83,105/- with interest. They contended that the developer unilaterally extended possession dates and altered plans without the consent of allottees.

Developer’s Defence: Force Majeure and Subvention Scheme

M/s. Indiabulls Properties Private Limited argued that the delays were due to “unforeseeable circumstances” such as the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai’s (MCGM) delay in taking possession of parking spots and the COVID-19 pandemic, classifying these as force majeure events under their agreement. They also highlighted that the homebuyers had only contributed around 20% of the flat’s consideration, with the developer having paid pre-EMIs under a subvention scheme with Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited.

MahaRERA’s Initial Stance and the Appeal

MahaRERA initially allowed the homebuyers to withdraw from the project and directed a refund with interest applicable from October 1, 2019. The Authority emphasized that Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, is an “absolute provision” that entitles allottees to interest for delays, irrespective of force majeure events cited by developers. MahaRERA also granted the developer the benefit of a moratorium period due to COVID-19 for interest calculation.

However, the homebuyers appealed this decision, primarily seeking interest on their full refund amount from the

dates of their respective payments, rather than a fixed later date.

Tribunal’s Landmark Decision: Interest from Payment Date

The MahaREAT, after reviewing the case, partially allowed the homebuyers’ appeal, modifying the original order. The Tribunal directed M/s. Indiabulls Properties Private Limited to refund Rs. 1,66,60,389/- along with interest at a rate of 2% above the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost lending rate,

from the date of respective payments of these amounts. This significantly shifts the burden of delay onto the developer by making interest applicable from an earlier point for a substantial portion of the refund. The developer has 30 days to comply, failing which further interest will apply from September 1, 2025.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the developer to execute a deed of cancellation within two months to facilitate the refund of stamp duty and other government taxes paid by the homebuyers. This ruling reaffirms the robust protections offered by RERA to ensure homebuyers are not unduly penalized for developer defaults.

Also Read: MahaRERA’s Real Estate Agents exam to begin from April End

The post Indiabulls Sky Forest Case: Landmark RERA Ruling Orders Developer to Issue Full Refunds with Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling, delivered by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, examined a total of six complaints filed by homebuyers and an association of allottees. Of these, two complaints were allowed, while four were dismissed as premature or unmaintainable.

Breakdown of Complaints and MahaRERA’s Decision

Key Findings and Rulings by MahaRERA

1. Refunds Allowed for Two Homebuyers with Interest

MahaRERA ruled in favor of Yaqoob Ahmed and the Banerji family, citing that:

• The possession date, as per their allotment letters, had already lapsed.
• The delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning the developer cannot claim a moratorium period under MahaRERA’s 2020-2021 relief orders.
• JVPD Properties is directed to refund the amounts paid by these buyers along with interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules 2017, from the due date of possession until the actual refund is completed.
• The refund must be completed within 60 days from the date of the order (January 9, 2025).

2. Four Complaints Dismissed as Premature or Unmaintainable

MahaRERA dismissed complaints from three individual homebuyers and the Serenity Welfare Association for the following reasons:

• Three homebuyers (Thakkar, Desai, Mendes family): Their allotment letters did not specify a possession date. Since the revised project completion deadline is July 30, 2025, MahaRERA deemed their complaints premature.
• Serenity Welfare Association: The association sought to compel Xander Finance Pvt. Ltd., a secured creditor, to register as a promoter and complete the project. MahaRERA rejected this claim, ruling that Xander Finance is a financial institution, not a developer, and does not have obligations under RERA to complete the project.

Impact of the Ruling

This decision establishes key legal precedents:

• Homebuyers with lapsed possession dates are entitled to refunds with interest, but only at rates prescribed under RERA rules, not arbitrary high-interest demands.
• Secured creditors (like Xander Finance) cannot be forced to act as developers unless they assume full control of the project.
• Complaints filed before the project’s official deadline are unlikely to succeed unless there is a clear breach of contract.

Conclusion

The MahaRERA ruling delivers partial relief to homebuyers, ensuring those with valid claims receive refunds, while also clarifying the legal responsibilities of developers versus financial institutions. With a 60-day compliance period, homebuyers await whether JVPD Properties will honor the refund orders or face further enforcement action.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal

The post MahaRERA Orders Refund with Interest in Serenity Project Case, Dismisses Premature Complaints appeared first on Square Feat India.