On 8 May 2026, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) ruled decisively in their favour, directing Ricardo Construction Pvt. Ltd. — a Shapoorji Pallonji group company that had taken over the stalled project — to pay interest on the ₹78.96 lakh already deposited by the couple, calculated from 1 July 2018 until the date of actual possession, at SBI’s Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%.

How it unravelled

The original developer, Nirmal Developers (Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd.), defaulted on loans from HDFC, which classified the account as a Non-Performing Asset and initiated securitization proceedings. Ricardo Construction stepped in via a Deed of Conveyance dated 29 June 2019, taking over the project with a stated commitment to complete construction and hand over flats to buyers.

But the takeover came with strings attached — for the buyers. Ricardo circulated a “Letter of Understanding” requiring homebuyers to accept a revised possession timeline of 39 months from the new RERA registration date, and a one-time credit note of ₹4 lakh (2BHK) or ₹5.25 lakh (3BHK) as full and final compensation — in lieu of any interest claims. The Association of Allottees, representing the majority, gave its consent. More than two-thirds of buyers signed on.

The Rais did not.

“Statutory rights of allottees cannot be curtailed by such arrangements made through a Letter of Understanding.”— MREAT, Appeal No. AT006000000053447 of 2021

What MahaRERA said — and what the tribunal overruled

When the Rais approached MahaRERA, the learned Chairperson’s order of 15 September 2021 directed them to continue in the project and cooperate with Ricardo and the Association of Allottees for early completion. The authority, in effect, treated the majority consent as binding on all — including those who never signed.

The tribunal rejected this reasoning outright. It held that Section 15(2) of the RERA Act requires any incoming promoter to independently honour all pending obligations of the previous developer — including delay-related liabilities. A project transfer does not reset the clock, nor does it erase the compensation that had already accrued to buyers.

Crucially, the tribunal held that the 2/3rd consent mechanism under Section 15 — designed to facilitate project transfers — cannot be weaponised to strip non-consenting buyers of their rights under Section 18. An individual buyer’s entitlement to interest for delayed possession is an unqualified statutory right, not a negotiable contractual clause that a majority can vote away.

The builder’s defence — and why it failed

Ricardo argued that the Rais were trying to “approbate and reprobate” — that is, they couldn’t simultaneously stay in the project and claim interest. The tribunal dismissed this, saying that Section 18 of RERA explicitly gives buyers two options: exit and get a full refund with interest, or stay and earn interest for every month of delay. Choosing to stay and claiming interest is not contradictory — it is precisely the right the law provides.

Ricardo also pointed to the interim order of September 2020 and the final order of September 2021, arguing they represented a balanced arrangement that served all stakeholders. The tribunal found the original orders were well-intentioned but legally insufficient — they could not override the buyers’ statutory entitlements.

The tribunal’s final order

-Interest base amount: ₹78,96,348

-Interest start date: 1 July 2018

-Interest end date: Date of actual possession

-Rate: SBI MCLR + 2%

-Legal costs awarded: ₹20,000 to buyers

Why this ruling matters

This case sets a significant precedent for distressed real estate projects where a new developer steps in mid-way. It firmly establishes that the successor promoter cannot use the project takeover process as a reset button on compensation liability. Buyers who refuse majority-driven settlement terms retain full RERA protection, and their silence or non-participation in a consent exercise cannot be construed as acceptance.

For the thousands of homebuyers stuck in similarly distressed projects across Maharashtra — where stalled projects are routinely transferred between developers under RERA’s framework — this ruling is a reminder that the law is on their side, even when the regulator’s own orders appear to favour project completion over individual rights.

The order was pronounced by Dr. Rajagopal Devara (Member-A) and Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Member-J) of the MREAT, Mumbai, on 8 May 2026.

Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project

The post MahaRERA Told Homebuyers to Cooperate. Tribunal Tells Builder to Pay Up appeared first on Square Feat India.

The MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande, in a detailed order dated 23 April 2026 (Complaint No. CC006000000078246), has pulled up Noble Infra Projects and directed it to deliver legal possession of Flat No. 1202 in “Noble Heights”, Malad (East), to the rightful allottee along with heavy interest running from January 2018.

How the Dispute Began

Shakir Shafiyddin Shaikh, the complainant, had worked as a labour and construction contractor for the builder’s SRA redevelopment project in Malad between 2015 and 2017. When the builder failed to clear his dues of around ₹1.22 crore, the parties reached a settlement in late 2017.

In lieu of cash payment, the builder executed a registered Agreement for Sale on 22 November 2017, allotting Flat No. 1202 (460 sq.ft. carpet area, 12th floor) to Shaikh for ₹55 lakh, with the amount adjusted against the outstanding contractor dues. The agreement promised possession by 31 December 2017.

Years passed with no possession and no Occupation Certificate (OC). Shaikh filed a complaint with MahaRERA in 2019. While the case was pending, the builder quietly handed over the same flat to a third party, who began occupying it. Electricity consumption records submitted in the case proved actual usage by someone else.

Builder’s Defence Crumbles

The developer claimed the Agreement for Sale was forged by a rogue employee in collusion with Shaikh. MahaRERA rejected this defence, observing:

• The builder had earlier admitted the execution of the agreement in multiple proceedings (including Section 138 NI Act cases and appeals), describing it only as signed “under duress”.
• The fraud and forgery allegations surfaced only in 2023–2024 — nearly six years later — indicating they were an afterthought.
• A registered document carries a strong presumption of validity unless set aside by a competent civil court.

The Authority ruled that Shakir Shaikh is a valid “Allottee” under Section 2(d) of RERA. Adjustment of dues against the flat price was accepted as valid consideration.

Key Directions in the Judgment

• The builder must hand over legal possession of Flat No. 1202 with Occupation Certificate to the complainant within 60 days.
• Pay interest under Section 18 of RERA on the full ₹55 lakh from 1 January 2018 till the date of actual possession (at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%).
• Pay ₹20,000 towards the complainant’s litigation costs.

No separate compensation for mental agony was awarded, as the statutory interest itself is compensatory in nature.

Why This Order Matters

This judgment highlights a serious malpractice in the real estate sector — builders creating third-party interests in already-sold units while litigation is pending. MahaRERA made it clear that such actions cannot defeat the rights of a registered allottee. The order also reaffirms RERA’s jurisdiction over delay-in-possession matters, even when parallel civil/criminal proceedings alleging fraud are ongoing.

The builder now faces the uphill task of removing the third-party occupant, obtaining the OC, and paying a massive accumulated interest bill that has been running for more than eight years.

This case serves as a strong warning to developers: registered agreements and RERA proceedings cannot be bypassed through backdoor dealings.

Also Read: Builder Couldn’t Pay ₹2,000 Cost, MahaRERA Orders ₹25 Lakh+ Refund to Homebuyer

The post Builder Hands Flat To Third Party, While Homebuyer Was Busy Fighting MahaRERA Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

Member II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande passed the order on 06.04.2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000193290, filed by Manohar Shetty and Lalita M. Shetty. The Authority partly allowed the complaint, awarding interest for the period of delay while rejecting the buyers’ initial demand for a full refund since they ultimately took possession.

Case Details

The complainants had booked Flat No. WING F 0804 by executing an Agreement for Sale on 28.07.2017 for a total consideration of ₹4,32,15,892. They paid approximately ₹4.09 crore (precisely ₹4,06,71,685 as on the agreed possession date). Clause 8.1 of the agreement stipulated possession by September 2019.

Despite the contractual timeline, the project faced delays. The developer cited challenges such as pending municipal sanctions, arbitration proceedings initiated by society members, torrential rains, and later the COVID-19 lockdown. The project received its Occupation Certificate (OC) on 02.03.2020, and buyers were informed via email on 04.03.2020. A final demand notice for the balance ₹25,44,207 was issued on 28.05.2020 during the lockdown period.

The Shettys filed the complaint on 15.06.2020, initially seeking a full refund of the principal amount, taxes, stamp duty, registration charges, interest, rent compensation, and ₹10 lakh for mental agony. They paid the outstanding amount and took possession on 23.10.2020 under protest. Their claim later shifted to interest for delayed possession.

Developer’s Defense and Authority’s Observations

Kolte-Patil argued that the agreement mentioned possession “on or before or about” September 2019, subject to force majeure events. The company highlighted delays due to approvals, arbitration, infrastructure work (including club house), and the pandemic, which prevented physical handover despite the OC.

MahaRERA, however, held that the developer failed to provide timely intimation or formally revise the possession date in the agreement. The Authority noted that extensions granted on the MahaRERA website for project completion do not override the contractual possession date agreed with individual allottees.

Citing the Bombay High Court’s observation in the Neelkamal Realtors case, the Member ruled that the right to interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act is unconditional and absolute, regardless of unforeseen events, once the agreed date lapses.

Interest Awarded

The Authority granted interest only from 01.10.2019 to 03.03.2020 on the amount paid by the complainants up to 30.09.2019 (₹4,06,71,685). Interest is to be calculated at the highest Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% per Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017. This applies monthly and covers only the consideration paid toward the flat (excluding stamp duty, registration charges, and taxes paid to the government).

No interest was awarded after 03.03.2020, as the flat was ready post-OC. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 was treated as a force majeure moratorium under MahaRERA’s Order No. 14/2020, during which interest under Section 18 is not payable.

Additionally, Kolte-Patil was directed to pay ₹20,000 toward the cost of the complaint. The developer must comply within 60 days of the order.

The Authority did not entertain the developer’s counter-claim for interest on the buyers’ delayed payment of the balance amount, as no separate complaint was filed.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

• Contractual possession dates in the Agreement for Sale take precedence over RERA-registered project completion timelines for calculating delay interest.
• Promoters must proactively communicate delays and revise dates formally; failure to do so weakens force majeure defenses.
• COVID-19 moratorium provides limited relief to developers but does not erase pre-pandemic delays.
• Homebuyers who take possession retain the right to claim interest for the delay period.

This order aligns with MahaRERA’s consistent approach in similar delayed possession cases, balancing buyer protection with practical realities like pandemics.

Homebuyers in ongoing redevelopment or delayed projects in Mumbai are advised to review their agreements and monitor project updates closely. Developers must ensure transparent communication to avoid such disputes.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post MahaRERA Orders Kolte-Patil Developers to Pay Interest for Delayed Possession in Vile Parle Redevelopment Project 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.