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.

The story revolves around Mr. Harishankar Kankani and Mrs. Pramila Harishankar Kankani, who in late 2005 approached M/s. Reddy Builders & Developers for a 3BHK flat (No. 804 on the 8th floor of proposed Sale Building No. 1) in their upcoming project in Goregaon West, Mumbai (later registered as “34 Park Estate” or “Oregon” under MahaRERA No. P51800006729).

They issued multiple cheques totaling ₹38,99,740 to the firm, handed over to the then-partner/director, the late Mr. P.V. Sreeram Reddy. In return, receipts dated 27 December 2005 and 5 January 2006 were issued, explicitly mentioning the flat number, floor, building details, location (CTS No. 49(P) and 50, Village Pahadi Goregaon), and the total consideration amount. These documents clearly acknowledged the payment as a “booking amount” for the allotment of the specific flat.

Tragically, Mr. P.V. Sreeram Reddy passed away on 28 March 2015. The surviving partners (including those inducted around 2005) claimed complete ignorance of this transaction. They asserted that the late director had never informed them, no formal agreement for sale was executed, and no such flat existed in the project’s records as per their understanding. When the Kankanis followed up in 2019–2020 with letters inquiring about the project status and asserting their claim, the promoters did not respond, effectively denying the allotment.

Frustrated, the homebuyers approached MahaRERA in 2021 by filing a complaint under Sections 13 (execution of agreement for sale) and 18 (interest/compensation for delay) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. They sought either registration of the agreement for the booked flat or a refund with interest.

After hearing both sides, MahaRERA (through Hon’ble Member Dr. Vijay Satbir Singh) passed an order on 19 April 2021. The Authority upheld the validity of the booking based on the receipts (which detailed the flat specifics) and directed the promoters to:

• Either allot an equivalent flat (same area) to the complainants and execute/register an agreement for sale, or
• Refund the entire amount paid along with interest.

This effectively recognized the homebuyers as legitimate allottees and rejected the promoters’ claim of no valid transaction.

Aggrieved, the promoters (M/s. Reddy Builders & Developers & Ors.) appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) in Appeal No. AT006000000053249/2021, challenging the Authority’s order on multiple grounds, including that the receipts did not constitute a valid allotment, contradictions with prior coordinate Bench rulings, improper admission of documents at the appellate stage, and lack of consideration of their submissions.

The Appellate Tribunal (Bench comprising Shri Shriram R. Jagtap, Member (J), and Dr. Rajagopal Devara, Member (A)) dismissed the appeal on 15 July 2024, upholding the MahaRERA order in full.

The promoters then filed a review application (M.A. No. 9 of 2024), arguing errors apparent on record — such as non-consideration of coordinate Bench precedents (e.g., cases where ambiguous/incomplete allotment letters were held invalid), failure to refer conflicting views to a Larger Bench, and improper reliance on “new” documents (like a floor plan) produced by the allottees.

On 18 February 2026, the same Appellate Tribunal rejected the review application. It emphasized that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (applied analogously) is extremely narrow: limited to patent, self-evident errors on the face of the record, not re-hearing or re-appreciation of evidence/arguments. The Tribunal found:

• No error apparent — the coordinate Bench cases cited by promoters were factually distinguishable (e.g., no specific flat details in those matters, unlike here where receipts explicitly mentioned flat no., floor, area, and consideration).
• Documents produced in reply to the appeal were permissible (from promoters’ own records with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority; already referenced in the original complaint; Appellate discretion under CPC Order 41 Rule 27).
• The promoters’ grounds amounted to re-agitating settled issues, which is impermissible in review.

Thus, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the original appellate dismissal stood, reinforcing MahaRERA’s directive: honour the equivalent allotment and execute the agreement, or refund with interest.

This case serves as an important reminder for homebuyers to insist on formal, registered agreements early on, while also underscoring RERA’s protective role — even for older, pre-RERA bookings backed by clear payment acknowledgments. It highlights how authorities can pierce claims of “ignorance” post-director death when documentary evidence supports the transaction.

Also Read: Homebuyers Beware: India’s Housing Boom May Have Peaked — Construction Delays Raise Red Flags

The post Homebuyer Paid to Director of Real Estate Firm, Director Died, Surviving Directors Claimed Ignorance — MahaRERA Steps In to Deliver Justice appeared first on Square Feat India.

RERA’s Legal Definition of Carpet Area

As per Section 2(k) of the RERA Act:

“Carpet area” means the net usable floor area of an apartment, excluding the area covered by the external walls, areas under services shafts, exclusive balcony or verandah area and exclusive open terrace area, but includes the area covered by the internal partition walls of the apartment.

In simple legal terms, carpet area refers to the actual usable floor space inside an apartment, including internal walls, but excluding areas that are not part of the enclosed living space.

What Is Excluded from Carpet Area Under RERA

The RERA definition explicitly excludes the following:

• Area covered by external walls
• Service shafts
• Exclusive balcony or verandah area
• Exclusive open terrace area

These exclusions ensure that only the functional internal space of the apartment is considered while declaring carpet area.

Clarification on Balcony, Verandah and Terrace Areas

The Act further explains these terms to avoid ambiguity:

• Exclusive balcony or verandah area means the balcony or verandah attached to the apartment, meant for the exclusive use of the allottee, but not included in carpet area.
• Exclusive open terrace area means the open terrace attached to the apartment, meant for the exclusive use of the allottee, and also excluded from carpet area.

These areas must be declared separately by the promoter and cannot be merged into carpet area calculations.

Why the RERA Definition Matters

By legally defining carpet area, RERA ensures:

• Uniform disclosure standards across projects
• Prevention of misleading size declarations
• Better comparability between apartments
• Greater transparency and consumer protection

Under RERA, promoters are required to sell apartments only on the basis of carpet area, making this definition central to homebuyer rights.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Clarifies ‘Built-Up Area Wall to Wall’ Equals Carpet Area in Real Estate Development Dispute

The post What Is Carpet Area? appeared first on Square Feat India.

Understanding Section 17(1) of RERA

Section 17(1) of the RERA Act deals with the “Transfer of Title.” It states: “The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favor of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, and hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, in a real estate project, and the other title documents pertaining thereto within specified period as per sanctioned plans as provided under the local laws.”

The proviso to this section adds: “Provided that, in the absence of any local law, conveyance deed in favor of the allottee or the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, under this section shall be carried out by the promoter within three months from date of issue of occupancy certificate.”

This provision ensures that once a project receives its occupancy certificate (OC), signifying that the building is ready for habitation, the developer cannot delay the legal transfer of ownership. If local laws (such as state-specific real estate regulations) do not specify a different timeline, the three-month period becomes mandatory.

What is a Conveyance Deed?

A conveyance deed is a legal document that formally transfers the ownership rights of a property from one party (the seller or developer) to another (the buyer, allottee, or housing society). It includes details such as the property description, boundaries, rights, and any encumbrances. Once registered with the sub-registrar’s office, it serves as proof of absolute ownership, replacing any provisional agreements like the agreement for sale.

Why is a Conveyance Deed Necessary for a Housing Society?

For a housing society (or association of allottees), a conveyance deed is essential because it grants full legal title to the land and common areas of the project. Without it:

• The society cannot independently manage, maintain, or redevelop the property.
• Individual flat owners may face issues in selling or mortgaging their units, as banks and buyers require clear title.
• It protects against future disputes with the developer over land rights or amenities.
• It enables the society to obtain utilities, property tax assessments, and other services in its own name.

In essence, the deed empowers the society to function as the true owner, fostering self-governance and preventing developers from retaining undue control post-completion.

It is mandatory for developers to execute this conveyance deed within the three-month timeframe from the OC issuance. Failure to comply can lead to penalties under RERA, including fines, project de-registration, or legal action by allottees through the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Homebuyers and societies are advised to monitor OC dates and pursue remedies if developers delay.

Also Read: Conveyance Deed has to be registered within 3 months of Receiving OC

The post Developers Mandated to Execute Conveyance Deed Within 3 Months of Occupancy Certificate appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Promoter’s Obligation Under Section 11(4)(e)

Under RERA, promoters are responsible for various duties to protect allottees (homebuyers). One critical obligation is enabling the creation of a legal entity for the buyers, such as a cooperative housing society, company, association, or federation. This entity acts as the collective voice and management body for the residents in a building or wing of a project.

MahaRERA’s FAQ explicitly states that the promoter must “enable formation of Legal Entity like Cooperative Society, Company, Association, Federation etc.” This goes beyond mere paperwork; it involves initiating the process, providing necessary documents, and cooperating with buyers to register the entity under applicable laws, such as the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Failure to comply can lead to penalties, complaints to MahaRERA, or even project deregistration, highlighting the authority’s commitment to transparency and buyer protection in the real estate sector.

The Prescribed Time Limit for Formation

A common question among homebuyers is whether there’s a deadline for this formation. According to MahaRERA, yes—there is a strict timeline to prevent developers from indefinitely delaying the handover of control.

The promoter is required to initiate and enable the formation within three months from either:

• The date on which 51% of the total number of purchasers in the building or wing have booked their apartments, or
• The receipt of the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the project.

This “whichever is earlier” approach ensures that the process starts promptly once a majority of units are sold or the building is deemed habitable. For instance, if a project has 100 apartments and 51 buyers have completed bookings, the clock starts ticking immediately, regardless of OC status. Conversely, if OC is issued before 51% bookings, the three-month window begins from the OC date.

This provision applies to registered projects under MahaRERA, and buyers can track project details, including booking status and OC issuance, via the MahaRERA portal (maharera.maharashtra.gov.in). If the promoter drags their feet, buyers can file a complaint with MahaRERA, which has powers to impose fines up to 5% of the project cost or direct compliance.

Why Forming a Housing Society is Crucial for Homebuyers

Forming a housing society shifts power from the developer to the residents, marking the end of unilateral control by the promoter. Without this, developers might continue managing common areas, maintenance, and funds, potentially leading to disputes over service quality, fund misuse, or arbitrary decisions.

In Maharashtra, where high-rise apartments and gated communities are common, delayed society formation has historically led to issues like inflated maintenance charges or incomplete amenities. MahaRERA’s rule addresses these by enforcing a timeline, aligning with the broader goal of RERA to promote accountability in real estate. It protects buyers from “perpetual developer dominance,” ensuring that once a critical mass of residents is in place or the building is ready, collective governance takes over.

Moreover, in the absence of local laws specifying otherwise, this three-month rule acts as a default safeguard, preventing developers from exploiting loopholes.

Key Benefits of a Formed Housing Society

The formation of a housing society offers numerous advantages, transforming passive buyers into active stakeholders. Here are some key benefits:

• Collective Ownership and Control: The society gains legal title to common areas like gardens, parking lots, gyms, and elevators through conveyance (deed transfer), typically required under Section 17 of RERA within three months of OC. This prevents developers from retaining undue influence.
• Financial Transparency: Residents can manage maintenance funds, audit accounts, and set fair charges. This reduces the risk of overbilling, which is common under developer-led interim committees.
• Decision-Making Power: Societies can vote on rules, elect office-bearers, and resolve disputes internally, fostering a democratic community environment. For example, decisions on repairs, security, or vendor contracts become resident-driven.
• Legal Protection and Dispute Resolution: As a registered entity, the society can sue or be sued, represent members in courts, and access government schemes like subsidies for rainwater harvesting or solar installations.
• Value Appreciation and Resale Ease: A well-managed society enhances property value. Buyers prefer projects with established societies, as it signals stability and reduces post-purchase hassles.
• Community Building: It promotes social cohesion, allowing residents to organize events, address grievances collectively, and negotiate with external parties like municipal authorities for better services.

In essence, a housing society empowers buyers to safeguard their investment, ensuring long-term habitability and harmony.

Consequences of Developer Non-Compliance and Remedies

If a promoter fails to meet the three-month deadline, homebuyers aren’t powerless. MahaRERA allows allottees to approach the authority for intervention, potentially leading to directives for immediate formation, fines, or compensation. In severe cases, repeated violations could result in the promoter’s blacklisting.

Additionally, under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, buyers can independently form a society if the developer delays, but MahaRERA’s involvement strengthens their case. Recent MahaRERA orders have directed developers to form societies and execute conveyances, setting precedents for enforcement.

Advice for Homebuyers: Stay Informed and Proactive

Homebuyers should monitor project progress on the MahaRERA website, verify booking percentages, and demand updates on OC status. Joining buyer groups early can help coordinate with the promoter. If delays occur, document communications and file timely complaints via MahaRERA’s online portal.

In conclusion, MahaRERA’s provision under Section 11(4)(e) is a vital shield for homebuyers, ensuring timely empowerment through housing society formation. By understanding and leveraging this rule, buyers can secure their rights and enjoy a smoother ownership experience.

Also Read: Tribunal Rules Housing Society Not a Promoter Under RERA

The post MahaRERA’s Rule on Housing Society Formation: A Guide for Homebuyers in Maharashtra appeared first on Square Feat India.

Project Background: A Tale of Delays and Developer Swaps

The “Woodshire” residential project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700012252) in Ambivali has been mired in controversy since its inception. Originally helmed by Kambar Constructions Pvt. Ltd., construction ground to a halt between 2016 and 2019 amid internal disputes and financial woes. This prompted allottee complaints and intervention by secured lender IIFL, who seized assets under the SARFAESI Act in March 2020.

In a 2021 suo motu case, MahaRERA revoked Kambar’s registration and approved IIFL’s nomination of M/s. Shreeji Enterprises as the new promoter, backed by alleged consents from 76 of 115 allottees. The project, now extended to December 31, 2025, for completion, remains incomplete at around 90% structural progress, fueling ongoing litigation.

IIFL’s Bold Claim: Seeking to Revoke and Replace Shreeji

At the heart of the order is IIFL’s complaint (No. CC006000000385436), filed in May 2023, accusing Shreeji of “negligible” progress and breaching a 2020 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). IIFL demanded revocation of Shreeji’s registration under Section 7 of RERA, a transfer of promoter rights under Section 15, or alternatively, permission to sell unsold flats to recover ₹2.65 crore in dues plus penalties.

IIFL positioned itself as the project’s guardian, citing prior MahaRERA recognitions of its secured creditor status and issuing a show-cause notice to Shreeji in March 2023. They argued that Shreeji’s delays violated RERA’s timely delivery mandate, causing hardship to allottees and undermining the Act’s transparency goals.

MahaRERA’s Firm Rejection: No Locus for Lenders in RERA Disputes

Chairperson Manoj Saunik decisively dismissed IIFL’s plea, ruling it non-maintainable. Key reasons include:

• Lack of Standing: IIFL, as a SARFAESI creditor, is not a “promoter” under RERA Section 2(zk) and holds no statutory duties toward allottees.
• No Allottee Consent: Absent fresh written approval from at least two-thirds of allottees (excluding promoter units), no promoter transfer could proceed under Section 15.
• Private Contract Issue: The dispute stems from MoU breaches—a commercial matter for civil courts, not RERA’s allottee-focused jurisdiction.

This rejection highlights RERA’s resistance to lenders “hijacking” projects, prioritizing buyer stability over debt recovery tactics. Shreeji countered by noting project extensions and ongoing work, including occupancy certificate applications.

Other Rulings: Association’s Bid Fails, Partial Win for Homebuyer

The order also disposed of two allied complaints:

• Flat Owners’ Association Plea (No. CC006000000395694): Dismissed for lacking proper authorization and allottee consents to reinstate Kambar as promoter. The association claimed 41 consents (with more pending) but failed to substantiate them adequately.
• Homebuyer Bhanwarlal Mohatta’s Complaint (No. CC12401273): Partly allowed. Mohatta sought Agreements for Sale for four flats (Nos. 104, 605, 809, 1206). Relief was granted only for Nos. 104 and 605, where full payment proofs were provided—Shreeji must execute and register these within 30 days using MahaRERA’s model form. The other two lacked documents, and Mohatta was fined ₹20,000 for negligence plus ₹5,000 in court fees.

These decisions reflect MahaRERA’s emphasis on evidence-based relief while discouraging repetitive or incomplete filings.

Red Flags on Double Sales: Project Frozen Amid Probes

Alarming allegations of dual allotments surfaced, with Kambar providing evidence of 13 flats (e.g., Flat No. 1005) sold twice—once by them to original buyers and again by Shreeji to new purchasers without resolving prior claims. Shreeji offered no rebuttal.

MahaRERA ordered both promoters to submit affidavits within seven days: Shreeji detailing all sales, unsold units, and financials; Kambar listing original allotments with proofs. Until resolved:

• The project is in abeyance, halting all sales, marketing, or bookings.
• Bank accounts are frozen.
• Sub-registrars barred from registering any agreements or deeds.

This interim freeze protects allottees from further irregularities but prolongs delays for the 115 affected families.

Broader Implications for Real Estate Lenders and Developers

The ruling sets a precedent: While lenders like IIFL can facilitate project revivals, they cannot unilaterally dictate outcomes under RERA without allottee backing. It reinforces the Act’s consumer-centric ethos amid India’s booming but volatile real estate sector. As of December 13, 2025, no updates on affidavit compliance or freeze lifting have emerged, leaving Woodshire’s fate hanging.

Experts warn this could deter aggressive lender interventions in stalled projects, pushing for more collaborative resolutions. Homebuyers, meanwhile, remain caught in the crossfire of financial and regulatory battles.

Also Read: Builder Sold Flat… Then Mortgaged It! MahaRERA Tribunal; Says Builder Must Clear Mortgage, Give Possession & Pay Interest

The post MahaRERA Stops Lender’s Bid to ‘Hijack’ Stalled Project: IIFL’s Promoter Change Plea Rejected appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background: MahaRERA’s 2022 Order Granting Interest

MahaRERA had on 3 November 2022 ordered CCI Projects to pay interest to the allottees under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, citing delay in possession.
Instead of filing an appeal, the developer chose to seek a review of the order and filed a review application on 16 December 2022.

Review Dismissed Twice; High Court Intervenes

MahaRERA dismissed the review on 28 March 2023, stating it did not have the power to review its own orders.
CCI Projects then approached the Bombay High Court, which on 4 April 2024 set aside MahaRERA’s rejection and directed the authority to hear the review afresh.

Following the High Court’s direction, MahaRERA reconsidered the review and again dismissed it on 24 June 2024, upholding its original 2022 order.

Developer Learnt of Order After Checking Website

In its plea for condonation of delay, CCI Projects said it became aware of the 24 June 2024 review order only on 9 July 2024, when checking the MahaRERA website.
The order, according to the developer, was neither communicated nor pronounced.

The appeal before MREAT was filed on 19 August 2024.

Homebuyers Oppose Condonation

The allottees argued that:

• The delay exceeded 600 days.
• The review proceedings were “frivolous” and intended to delay compliance.
• The appeal was time-barred under Section 44 of the RERA Act.

They sought dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Tribunal’s Findings: Developer Acted Bonafide

Allowing the condonation plea, the Tribunal noted:

• CCI Projects was bona fide pursuing legally available remedies — first before MahaRERA and then in the High Court.
• The High Court’s remand validated the developer’s action of filing a review.
• The period spent in review and writ petition proceedings must be excluded from computing delay.
• The developer filed the appeal promptly after learning of the 24 June 2024 order.

The Tribunal concluded that the promoter had shown “sufficient cause” for the delay.

Outcome

With the delay condoned, CCI Projects’ appeal against the interest order will now be heard on merits.

Also Read: Homebuyer Loses Flat, Payment Forfeited After Ignoring MahaRERA Order to Clear Dues

The post MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Allows CCI Projects’ Delayed Appeal, Says Time Spent in Review Process Must Be Excluded appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling that strengthens the rights of homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has stayed a MahaRERA order that had reversed earlier refund reliefs granted to flat buyers. The tribunal held that RERA’s review powers cannot be used to alter substantive orders, such as refund and interest directions, once already decided.

Case Background

Several homebuyers, including Ashrafuz Zaman Sheikh, Anvesh Kumar, and Saurav Mimani, had approached MahaRERA in 2021 seeking a refund of payments made for flats in SD SVP Nagar Redevelopment Pvt. Ltd., along with interest and compensation.
In April 2022, MahaRERA ruled in their favour, directing the promoter to refund the amounts with interest and imposing a ₹5,000 per day penalty for non-compliance.

However, in February 2025, MahaRERA set aside its own refund order by entertaining review applications filed by the promoter and restored the complaints for fresh hearings — a move that effectively stripped homebuyers of their earlier relief.

Homebuyers’ Argument

The buyers argued before the appellate tribunal that:

• Section 39 of RERA only allows review to correct “mistakes apparent from the record”, not to overturn final substantive reliefs.
• The promoter should have filed an appeal, but instead used review proceedings to circumvent the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA.
• Parallel hearings of restored complaints alongside appeals would cause harassment, multiplicity of litigation, and financial burden.

Promoter’s Defence

The promoter countered that:

• Flats already had an occupation certificate in 2019 and possession was offered.
• Buyers defaulted on payments, leading lenders to seize the flats.
• Homebuyers were attempting to misuse RERA to avoid obligations while enjoying an “EMI-free” period.
• The impugned order merely restored complaints and caused no real prejudice.

Tribunal’s Findings

After examining Section 39 of RERA and MahaRERA Regulations 2017, the tribunal concluded:

• Review powers are limited to clerical or factual errors, not reversal of core reliefs.
• By recalling the April 2022 refund order and restoring the complaints, MahaRERA went beyond its powers.
• The February 2025 review order is prima facie unsustainable and must be stayed to prevent “multiplicity of litigation” and protect homebuyers from prejudice.

The Order

On 21st August 2025, the appellate tribunal ruled:

• The impugned MahaRERA order of 18.02.2025 is stayed.
• The stay will remain until the final disposal of homebuyers’ appeals.

Why This Matters: A Precedent for Homebuyers

This ruling sets a crucial precedent:

• MahaRERA cannot undo its own refund orders via review; promoters must file appeals and comply with pre-deposit norms.
• It strengthens homebuyers’ position against delaying tactics by developers.
• It clarifies that Section 39 review is not a backdoor appeal mechanism.

For thousands of homebuyers locked in refund battles, this decision provides a shield against promoters exploiting procedural loopholes to delay payouts.

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

The post Relief for Flat Buyers: Tribunal Blocks Builder’s Move to Avoid Refunds appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute involved Bharat Maneklal Parekh, who challenged a MahaRERA order requiring him and a partnership firm to hand over a flat and pay interest for delayed possession to allottee Ashwin Popatlal Dedhia. The RERA Act mandates that a promoter must deposit the entire amount awarded by the authority before filing an appeal with the Tribunal.

Parekh sought a waiver, arguing he was not a promoter, having retired from the partnership and not being named as such in the agreement for sale.

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found this argument unsustainable. It noted that under a retirement deed dated October 7, 2016, Parekh was granted rights to deal with certain flats, including the disputed unit.

The Tribunal clarified that RERA’s definition of “promoter” extends to an “assignee” — a person granted rights to property with the authority to sell to third parties. Since Parekh was allotted a constructed area with “absolute right to deal with and dispose of the same,” he qualified as a promoter under Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act, 2016.

Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal underscored that the pre-deposit provision is intended to protect the allottee’s awarded amount and deter frivolous litigation at the appellate stage. It reiterated that it has no jurisdiction to waive the pre-deposit requirement, except in cases involving penalties.

The Tribunal dismissed the waiver application and directed Parekh to deposit the full amount, along with accrued interest, within two weeks. Failure to do so, it warned, would result in the appeal being dismissed for non-compliance with the RERA Act.

Also Read: MahaRERA real estate projects lapsed

The post MahaRERA Tribunal Holds Ex-Partner as ‘Promoter’, Affirms Allottee’s Rights in RERA Battle appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case involves two appeals filed by Hasmukh Vershi Gala and Paresh Kantilal Gala against the promoter, M/s. Adarsh Industrial Estate Private Limited, for their project “Link Park” in Malad (West). The dispute centered on the promoter’s prolonged failure to hand over possession of the flats, which were booked by the appellants in 2013. According to the Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) signed at the time, possession was to be delivered within 54 months, plus a 6-month grace period, with the final dates being in early to mid-2018.

However, the promoter failed to meet this deadline, and as of the date of the order, the project was still incomplete without an occupation certificate. The appellants initially approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), seeking to withdraw from the project and claim a full refund with interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

In a common order, MahaRERA allowed the withdrawal and refund but imposed a condition that the refund and interest would only be paid after the promoter obtained a full occupation certificate. The authority also granted the promoter a “moratorium period” for interest payments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, based on a force majeure event.

The appellants challenged this conditional refund order at the MahaRERA Tribunal. During the appeal, the promoter did not appear despite being given sufficient opportunities. The Tribunal reviewed the case and found that the promoter had unequivocally failed to hand over possession, and that the MoUs, although pre-dating the RERA Act, could be enforced under the law. The tribunal’s order cited a pivotal Supreme Court case, M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of U.P. & Others, which established that the RERA Act is retroactive in operation and serves to protect the interests of allottees in ongoing projects.

Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that under Section 18 of the RERA Act, allottees have an unconditional right to a refund with interest if the promoter fails to give possession. Therefore, the tribunal rejected the MahaRERA’s condition to defer the refund until the project’s completion, stating it was not legally sustainable.

The MahaRERA Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, directing the promoter to refund the entire amount paid by the appellants within 30 days of the order. This amount must include interest calculated at a rate of 2% above the State Bank of India’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR), with the interest dating back to the time of each payment until the money is actually returned to the complainants. The tribunal, however, rejected the appellants’ claim for compensation due to a lack of supporting documentary evidence.

Also Read: Rising property prices have boosted present homeowners’ home equity

The post In a landmark decision: MahaRERA Tribunal Upholds RERA Act’s Retroactive Power appeared first on Square Feat India.