Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in his judgment pronounced today, refused to declare the December 17, 2019 order — directing Marvel to refund ₹1,35,99,246 along with 10.20% interest per annum to flat purchaser Mr. Siddharth Mohan Palesha — as a nullity. The court also declined to interfere with the subsequent October 8, 2021 Recovery Order, which treats the unpaid amount as arrears of land revenue recoverable through the Collector.

The developer had argued that the Adjudicating Officer who passed the refund order lacked jurisdiction, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP. Marvel contended that only compensation could be adjudicated by such officers under Section 71 of the RERA Act, rendering any refund direction non est (non-existent in law) even years later.

Justice Sundaresan rejected this interpretation, holding that Newtech primarily addressed the powers of Whole Time Members of RERA to order refunds and delegation under Section 81 of the Act. The Supreme Court did not rule that Adjudicating Officers were barred from directing refunds when powers were validly delegated. Reading judgments out of context or like statutes was cautioned against.

More crucially, the court emphasised delay and laches. The 2019 order attained finality because Marvel never filed a statutory appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act within the prescribed 120-day limit (60 days + 60 days condonable). The writ petition itself was filed only in August 2024 — nearly five years after the original order and almost three years after the Newtech judgment.

Citing Supreme Court precedents such as U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, the judge observed that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be used to reopen long-crystallised rights, especially by parties who remained indolent.

The court noted that Marvel appeared to have adopted a reactive approach, filing the petition after the homebuyer approached the High Court in a separate writ (WP 2271 of 2024) seeking enforcement. It also highlighted that Marvel is connected to Marveledge Realtors (a sister concern where a Division Bench had granted some relief in a similar matter), but distinguished the facts due to the inordinate delay here.

The judgment underscores that even if a subsequent higher court ruling clarifies the law, it does not automatically reopen matters that have attained finality without timely challenge. Homebuyers’ rights, once crystallised through unappealed RERA orders, cannot be easily disturbed years later.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Recovery proceedings against Marvel can now proceed.

This ruling is likely to discourage developers from belatedly challenging old RERA refund orders on jurisdictional grounds post-Newtech, sending a strong message on timely compliance and the protection of homebuyer interests under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Also Read: No Agreement Of Sale Means No Refund, says MahaRERA

The post Bombay HC Dismisses Marvel Landmarks Petition; Upholds 2019 RERA Refund Order to Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in Complaint No. CC006000000303572, decided on 20 January 2026, in a dispute involving the project Ajmeri Heights, located at Andheri (East), Mumbai, developed by Ajmeri Realty Pvt. Ltd. The complaint was filed by Deepesh Nair, a homebuyer who had paid a substantial portion of the flat consideration without ever receiving a registered Agreement for Sale.

Over 70% Collected Without Agreement, Clear Section 13 Violation

As per the order, the complainant had paid ₹64 lakh out of a total flat consideration of ₹87.24 lakh in 2014, amounting to over 70% of the total cost. Despite receiving these payments, the promoter failed to execute a registered Agreement for Sale, issuing only an undated allotment letter.

MahaRERA observed that this conduct amounted to a blatant violation of Section 13 of RERA, which prohibits promoters from accepting more than 10% of the apartment cost without first entering into a registered Agreement for Sale.

Allotment Letter Has No Statutory Sanctity

The authority reiterated that an allotment letter does not confer enforceable contractual rights under RERA. In the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale, there was:

• No binding possession date,
• No defined obligations of the promoter, and
• No contractual safeguards for the allottee.

MahaRERA noted that such practices weaken buyer protection and cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose of the Act.

Section 18 Not Strictly Applicable, But Relief Cannot Be Denied

While considering the refund claim, MahaRERA acknowledged that Section 18 of RERA, which governs refunds for delayed possession, ordinarily requires the existence of:

• A registered Agreement for Sale, and
• A contractually defined possession date.

Since neither existed in the present case, the authority held that Section 18 could not be applied in its strict form. However, it categorically rejected the argument that this technical gap should allow the promoter to retain the buyer’s money indefinitely.

MahaRERA Invokes Inherent Powers to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

To ensure justice, MahaRERA invoked its inherent powers under Regulation 39 of the MahaRERA General Regulations, 2017, observing that RERA is a beneficial and social welfare legislation.

The authority held that allowing the promoter of Ajmeri Heights, Andheri to retain over ₹64 lakh without executing an agreement or offering possession would result in unjust enrichment and defeat the objectives of RERA.

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed Ajmeri Realty Pvt. Ltd. to:

• Refund ₹64,00,000 to the complainant,
• Pay interest at SBI MCLR + 2% per annum from the respective dates of payment made in 2014 until realization, and
• Pay ₹20,000 towards litigation costs,
• Within 30 days of the order.

Builder’s Absence Weighed Against Them

The order records that the respondent developer:

• Remained absent during proceedings,
• Filed no written reply, and
• Did not dispute receipt of the amounts paid.

MahaRERA treated the complainant’s assertions as uncontroverted, strengthening the case for granting relief.

Supreme Court’s Newtech Judgment Distinguished

MahaRERA also clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was not applicable to the facts of this case, as that judgment presupposes the existence of a registered Agreement for Sale with a stipulated possession timeline — conditions absent in the Ajmeri Heights matter.

Why This Order Is a Big Signal for Homebuyers

Legal experts say the order has wide implications for:

• Pre-RERA bookings,
• Projects where builders deliberately avoided executing agreements, and
• Buyers trapped in long-stalled developments.

The ruling makes it clear that promoters cannot take advantage of their own statutory violations and that MahaRERA will step in to ensure equity, even where technical requirements are missing due to the promoter’s fault.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post Even Without Agreement for Sale, MahaRERA Can Order Refund to Prevent Injustice appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order, passed on 18 December 2025, pertains to a complaint filed by Ashish Kumar Tiwari, who alleged that he was misled into booking a flat in the project “Sunteck West World–1, Naigaon East”, only to later discover that the flat had already been allotted to another buyer.

As per the facts recorded by MahaRERA, the complainant initially paid ₹50,500 towards a booking in another Sunteck project. On the builder’s assurance that this amount would be adjusted, he subsequently paid an additional ₹1.62 lakh towards booking Flat No. C-1405 in Sunteck West World–1. Despite repeated follow-ups, the complainant never received an allotment letter or confirmation.

During a site visit, the complainant was informed that the flat was already allotted to another person and that his name did not reflect in the builder’s records. Importantly, MahaRERA noted an internal email from the promoter acknowledging that the case involved double booking and instructing staff to process a refund.

Despite this admission, the builder later issued a cancellation letter claiming forfeiture of the amount paid, citing alleged default by the buyer.

MahaRERA rejected the promoter’s defence, observing that the booking form was not signed by the promoter, no Agreement for Sale had been executed, and no allotment had ever been confirmed. The Authority held that in the absence of a concluded contract, the complainant could not be treated as a defaulter.

The Authority further observed that the complainant had sought a refund prior to the issuance of the cancellation letter, and that the attempt to forfeit the amount was unjustified. Holding the promoter responsible for the error, MahaRERA concluded that the complainant was a bona fide purchaser and that the fault squarely lay with the builder.

Accordingly, MahaRERA directed the promoter to refund the amount paid by the complainant within 60 days, excluding only statutory payments such as taxes and government charges. The Authority refused to entertain the promoter’s claim that the amount stood forfeited.

The order sends a strong message that double booking and failure to issue proper allotment cannot be cured by unilateral cancellation or forfeiture, and that builders will be held accountable for administrative lapses under RERA.

The post Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

A homebuyer, Amit Shah, has successfully approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) against real estate developer Sylvanus Properties Limited over serious violations relating to delayed possession, illegal collection of money, and non-execution of an agreement for sale in the “Indiabulls Savroli-2” project at Savroli village in Raigad district.

In a detailed order passed on December 16, 2025, MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande allowed the complaint and held that the homebuyer was entitled to withdraw from the project and seek refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Background of the Dispute

The complainant booked a 3 BHK flat (Flat No. G-4/A301) in Phase-2 of the project in May 2013 for a total consideration of ₹84.98 lakh. At the time of booking, the project did not have amended construction permissions.

The buyer paid ₹13.14 lakh directly to the developer and availed a housing loan of ₹70.08 lakh from Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd under a subvention scheme, where the builder was to bear the pre-EMI interest until possession.

A tripartite agreement was executed on July 30, 2013 between the buyer, the developer, and the lender.

Allegations by the Homebuyer

The complainant alleged that despite the payment plan being linked to construction progress, the lender disbursed the entire loan amount in a lump sum in August 2013 without his consent and at a time when no construction had commenced and requisite approvals were absent.

He further contended that:

• No registered Agreement for Sale was executed even after collecting over 90% of the flat cost
• The builder failed to commence or complete Phase-2 of the project
• Promised amenities and timelines were misrepresented
• Possession, originally represented around 2015, was never offered

Invoking Sections 12 and 18 of RERA, the buyer sought to withdraw from the project and claim a full refund with interest and compensation.

Builder’s Defence Rejected

The developer denied the allegations and argued that:

• The booking was only provisional
• No possession date was agreed
• The buyer defaulted in loan repayment
• The dispute should be resolved through arbitration

MahaRERA rejected all these defences, holding that arbitration clauses cannot override statutory remedies under RERA and that promoters cannot escape liability by failing to execute an agreement for sale.

Key Findings of MahaRERA

MahaRERA recorded multiple serious violations:

• Illegal collection of funds: The builder received ₹83.22 lakh without executing a registered Agreement for Sale, violating Section 13 of RERA, which permits collection of only 10% without such an agreement.
• Unauthorized loan disbursement: The entire loan was released without the buyer’s request or consent and before construction approvals were obtained.
• Prolonged delay: Even the project’s declared completion dates of July 1, 2017 and later November 30, 2020 had long expired.
• Absolute right to refund: The Authority reiterated that under Section 18, once possession is delayed beyond the declared date, an allottee has an unconditional right to withdraw and seek refund with interest.

The Authority relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima to hold that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely and that three years is a reasonable period for completion in the absence of a fixed possession date.

Final Order

MahaRERA directed Sylvanus Properties Limited to:

• Refund ₹13,14,135 paid by the complainant
• Pay interest at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%
• Calculate interest from July 2, 2017 till actual refund
• Complete payment within 30 days from the date of the order

The Authority clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to pass directions against the housing finance company, as RERA applies only to promoters, allottees, and real estate agents.

Why This Order Is Important for Homebuyers

This order is significant because it clearly establishes that:

• Builders cannot collect large sums without executing a registered Agreement for Sale
• Delays beyond declared RERA completion dates automatically trigger refund rights
• Subvention schemes do not dilute homebuyer protections
• Arbitration clauses cannot block RERA remedies
• Banks and builders can be scrutinised for premature loan disbursement, even if relief against lenders must be sought elsewhere

For thousands of homebuyers stuck in delayed or stalled projects, this order reinforces that RERA is a buyer-protection law with overriding statutory force.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post Amit Shah Approaches MahaRERA Against Builder In Indiabulls Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a final order passed by Chairperson Manoj Saunik, MahaRERA has directed Swayam Developers and associated respondents to refund amounts with interest, hand over possession with Occupancy Certificate (OC), and not create third-party rights over flats that have been partially paid for.

The project, registered under P51700013349, was originally scheduled for completion on December 31, 2018, with an extended deadline of December 30, 2022. However, the developer failed to obtain the OC and did not apply for further extension, rendering the project lapsed under RERA norms.

Complaint-Wise Outcomes:

• Dilip Bafna, who had paid ₹14 lakh for Flat 204, was granted a refund with interest from January 1, 2019, as he chose to withdraw from the project. MahaRERA also allowed him to separately approach the Adjudicating Officer for compensation.
• Ramesh Maurya, whose flat was allegedly leased out by the builder without consent, had his complaint dismissed on procedural grounds. His earlier 2018 case regarding delayed possession had already been settled via consent terms.
• Natwar Parmar, who had paid over 60% of the flat’s cost, was granted possession of Flat No. 101, along with instructions to the builder to execute the agreement for sale and not create third-party interests.

Promoter Absent, Regulatory Breaches Noted

MahaRERA observed that the promoter had remained absent for three consecutive hearings, failed to update project status on the portal since 2019, and accepted over 10% payment from buyers without executing sale agreements — a direct violation of Section 13 of the RERA Act.

The Authority has also denied the promoter the benefit of the COVID-19-related moratorium period, citing clear inaction and non-compliance.

The order directs the promoter to:

• Refund amounts with applicable interest within 60 days
• Apply for project extension within 30 days
• Update project status and submit quarterly progress reports, failing which penalties under Section 63 will apply

Legal Significance

This case reiterates MahaRERA’s approach toward buyer-centric enforcement, especially in projects where developers have failed to obtain OC or execute agreements despite receiving substantial payments. It also underscores the risks of non-compliance with mandatory RERA obligations — including promoter absence during proceedings.

Also Read: MahaRERA Redefines Criteria for SROs to Benefit Developers Outside MMR

The post MahaRERA Orders Refund, Possession in Lapsed Bhayandar Project; Promoter Absent from Proceedings appeared first on Square Feat India.