The case relates to the project “Sarvesh One” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800022923) in Lower Parel, Mumbai, developed by Sarvesh Enterprises. Vanita Khilari had approached the Authority seeking refund of ₹27 lakh she claimed to have paid towards the booking of six apartments and four car parking spaces.

What Happened in the Original Complaint

According to the homebuyer, an Allotment Letter dated 7 August 2019 was issued for Flat Nos. 1103, 1201, 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 along with four car parking spaces for a total consideration of ₹4 crore. She stated that she paid ₹27 lakh, with the balance payable at the time of possession. Possession was promised within two years, i.e., by around 6–7 August 2021. No registered Agreement for Sale was executed.

She filed Complaint No. CC006000000344203 seeking refund of the amount paid with interest and other reliefs. On 8 May 2026, the Authority rejected the complaint. The primary reason was the absence of documentary proof of payment — no bank statements, receipts, or RTGS details were placed on record. The handwritten Allotment Letter covering multiple flats under a single document was also found insufficient on its own. The Authority granted liberty to file a fresh complaint with supporting evidence.

What Is a Review Application and Why Merit Matters

A review is not the same as an appeal. Under Regulation 36 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2017, a party can seek review of an order on limited grounds. One important ground is the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time the order was passed.

Merit is crucial. The new evidence must be material and must directly address the deficiency or finding that led to the original order. A review cannot be used simply to re-argue the same case or introduce evidence that was available earlier but not filed. In this case, the bank statements were treated as new material evidence precisely because the original rejection was based on the lack of proof of payment.

How the Homebuyer Succeeded on Review

The homebuyer filed a Review Application and annexed HDFC Bank statements (bearing the bank’s seal). These showed five RTGS transfers totalling exactly ₹27 lakh to Sarvesh Enterprises with the narration “RTGS DR-KKBK0000640-SARVESH ENTERPRISES”. The transfers were made in August 2019 from accounts of family members, including one jointly held by the homebuyer herself.

The respondents were given time to file a reply but did not do so. The Authority proceeded on the basis of the material placed by the applicant.

On a conjoint reading of the bank statements and the Allotment Letter (issued on the promoter’s letterhead and bearing its seal), the Authority held that the evidentiary position had materially changed. The handwritten nature of the Allotment Letter and the fact that it covered multiple units under one document could not be viewed in isolation once the payment was corroborated.

The Authority also noted that Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 restricts a promoter from accepting more than 10% of the cost without a written and registered Agreement for Sale. However, the fact that the amount paid was less than 10% does not justify the promoter’s failure to execute the agreement. Non-execution of the agreement is the promoter’s default and cannot be used to defeat the allottee’s claim when the Allotment Letter and payment proof exist.

Since possession was not handed over by the stipulated date of 7 August 2021, the homebuyer was held entitled to withdraw from the project and seek refund with interest under Section 18(1) of the Act read with the Rules.

The Final Order

By its order dated 21 October 2026, the Authority allowed the Review Application and reviewed and modified the earlier order of 8 May 2026. The original complaint was partly allowed. Sarvesh Enterprises (Respondent No. 1) has been directed to refund ₹27,00,000 to the homebuyer within 45 days, together with interest at the rate of the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum from the respective dates of payment till actual realisation.

All other reliefs, including claims for compensation, penalties, and legal costs, were rejected. There is no order as to costs.

What This Means for Homebuyers

The order illustrates that an initial rejection solely for want of documentary proof is not necessarily the end of the road if material new evidence later becomes available. Bank statements reflecting the exact amount claimed, issued by a bank and showing the promoter as the beneficiary, can be decisive. Family payments and a joint-account transfer were accepted as supporting the allottee’s claim when read with the Allotment Letter.

At the same time, the case underlines the importance of producing complete evidence at the first instance. A review succeeds only when the new material addresses the specific ground of rejection and has genuine merit. Promoters who do not execute a registered Agreement for Sale and fail to hand over possession by the agreed date remain exposed to refund directions under Section 18, even if other claims are denied.

The interest in this case runs from the individual RTGS dates in August 2019, so the total amount payable will be higher than the principal of ₹27 lakh once calculated.

Also Read: Homebuyer Admits Paying ₹30 Lakh in Cash, Yet Wins Tax Case

The post Homebuyer Loses MahaRERA Case First, Returns With Proof and Wins ₹27 Lakh Refund appeared first on Square Feat India.