Chairperson Manoj Saunik, in an order dated 23 July 2026, held that the maternity leave of one legal executive of the company cannot be accepted as “sufficient cause” to condone a delay of approximately 136 days in filing the review petitions. The Authority made it clear that the statutory 45-day limitation period is not flexible, particularly for large developers.

Project and Background

The Wintergreen project is registered with MahaRERA under registration number P51800003067. Several homebuyers who had booked flats in 2016 filed complaints seeking interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

MahaRERA had earlier allowed the complaints and passed orders in favour of the allottees — five orders on 27 November 2025 and one order on 11 December 2025. These orders directed the promoter to pay interest for the period of delay in handing over possession.

CCI Projects then filed six separate review applications on 27 May 2026 seeking to set aside the original orders and also praying for a stay on their implementation.

The Delay and the Explanation Offered

Under Regulation 36 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2017, any person aggrieved by an order of the Authority can file a review application within 45 days from the date of the order. The grounds for review are limited: discovery of new and important evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

In this case, the review applications were filed nearly three months beyond the prescribed 45-day period. CCI Projects attributed the delay to the maternity leave of its Legal Executive, Ms Riddhi Shah, who had been handling the original complaints and around 91 connected matters of the same project. The company stated that she proceeded on maternity leave from 1 December 2025 and the officer who took over needed time to understand the files, obtain instructions and finalise the review applications.

MahaRERA’s Findings

The Authority rejected the explanation. It observed that internal administrative issues or the maternity leave of a single employee cannot constitute sufficient cause for such a long delay, especially when the promoter is a large developer represented by experienced advocates and is already contesting a large number of similar cases.

MahaRERA further held that even on merits, the review applications merely sought re-appreciation of the same facts and arguments that had already been considered and rejected in the original orders. These included claims of force majeure events such as sand scarcity, the 2012 fungible FSI notification, funding issues, COVID-19, contractual extension clauses, and the fact that buyers had eventually taken possession after the Occupation Certificate was issued in April 2021.

The Authority reiterated that the scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or as a second opportunity to argue the same points.

Consequently, all six review applications were dismissed. No costs were imposed.

Implications

With the reviews dismissed, the original MahaRERA orders granting interest for delayed possession to the homebuyers now stand. The promoter will have to either comply with those orders or challenge them before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, subject to the limitation period applicable for appeals.

The ruling sends a clear message to the real estate industry: the 45-day window for filing a review before MahaRERA will be strictly enforced. Personal or internal difficulties of the promoter’s staff will rarely be accepted as sufficient justification once the limitation period has expired and rights have crystallised in favour of homebuyers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Order Overturned: Homebuyers Win Delay Interest from CCI Projects in Rivali Park’s Winter Green Project

The post MahaRERA: Employee’s Maternity Leave Can’t Justify 136-Day Delay by Builder appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in M.A. No. 751 of 2025 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00319/2025, between allottee Anubhav Virmani and promoter Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd., and underscores how procedural mistakes can completely extinguish a homebuyer’s appellate rights under RERA.

What Triggered the Homebuyer’s Loss

The homebuyer sought to appeal against a MahaRERA Authority order dated 30 January 2025, which had dismissed his complaint as premature.
Under Section 44 of the RERA Act, an appeal must be filed within 60 days, i.e., by 30 March 2025.

The allottee claimed:

• Appeal was filed online on 08 April 2025
• Delay was only 8 days
• Delay occurred due to frequent professional travel

On this basis, a delay condonation application was filed.

Developer’s Advocate Exposes Critical Filing Defects

The decisive blow to the homebuyer’s case came from Advocate Vinod Talreja, appearing for Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd., who highlighted serious procedural defects in the appeal filing.

Adv. Talreja pointed out that:

• The appeal memo uploaded on 08.04.2025 was unsigned
• It was neither affirmed nor notarized
• No vakalatnama or authorization existed on the claimed filing date
• All documents—including affidavits and appeal memo—were signed, affirmed, and notarized only on 04 August 2025

Based on these defects, Adv. Talreja argued that:

An unsigned and unexecuted appeal cannot be treated as a valid appeal in law, and such filing does not stop the clock of limitation.

This argument proved pivotal.

Tribunal’s Finding: No Valid Appeal Without Proper Execution

The Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice S.S. Shinde (Chairperson) and Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande (Member A), accepted the promoter’s submissions and held that:

Unsigned, unaffirmed, and unnotarized documents do not constitute a valid appeal.

Relying on Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC and the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019, the Tribunal ruled that:

• Mere online uploading of defective documents is insufficient
• An appeal becomes valid only when duly signed and executed

From 8 Days to 125 Days: How the Delay Ballooned

On the basis of Adv. Talreja’s submissions, the Tribunal concluded that:

• The appeal became legally valid only on 04 August 2025
• Limitation expired on 30 March 2025
• Actual delay was 125 days, not 8 days

The Tribunal found that the homebuyer:

• Suppressed material facts
• Misrepresented the length of delay
• Did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands

Travel Excuse Rejected Despite Homebuyer’s Plea

The homebuyer, represented by Advocate Aman Shukla, argued that frequent travel for professional commitments caused the delay.

However, the Tribunal rejected this explanation, observing that:

• No compelling or documented reasons were shown
• No explanation was given for long periods of inactivity while in Mumbai
• In the digital era, appeals can be prepared and filed remotely
• Routine professional travel cannot override statutory limitation

Tribunal Warns Against Misuse of Online Filing

In strong words, the Tribunal cautioned that:

• Allowing defective appeals to be cured months later would create a dangerous precedent
• Parties could manipulate limitation by uploading unsigned documents
• Such practices would undermine the substantive law of limitation

Final Outcome: Homebuyer’s Appeal Ends Without Merits Hearing

• Delay condonation application rejected
• Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable
• No examination of the homebuyer’s grievance on merits
• Parties directed to bear their own costs

Why This Order Is a Wake-Up Call for Homebuyers

This case is a stark reminder that:

• Technical compliance is as critical as substantive rights
• Even genuine grievances can fail due to procedural lapses
• RERA’s appellate process is unforgiving of defective filings

For homebuyers, the message is clear:

A single technical mistake can cost the entire appeal.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post One Signature Not on Time Costs Homebuyer His Entire Case in RERA Appeal appeared first on Square Feat India.