The complaint (CC006000000198851), filed in October 2021, stemmed from a 2012 arrangement in which Nikant Steel, a proprietary concern of Bhavesh N. Shah engaged in iron and steel supplies, claimed that outstanding dues of ₹6 crore from Sheth Developers were adjusted against the allotment of three flats in the then-named “Vasant Pearl” project (now Sheth Blue Ivy, RERA Registration No. P51800001407).

According to the complainant, three Letters of Allotment were issued on January 27, 2012, for Flat Nos. 101, 201, and 202. Nikant Steel produced receipts showing payments/receipts totaling over ₹6 crore, but the allotment letters recorded only ₹72.86 lakh as earnest money. The complainant alleged that no registered Agreement for Sale was executed, possession was never given, and the promoter violated provisions of MOFA and RERA.

Sheth Developers strongly contested the claim. They argued that only ₹72.86 lakh was received as earnest money, denied the adjustment of ₹6 crore dues, and highlighted that the complainant remained silent for several years regarding the alleged discrepancy in the allotment letters. The promoter also pointed to long-pending litigation, including a Bombay High Court suit (Suit No. 771 of 2018) that had restrained further development until April 2024, and ongoing arbitration proceedings with a co-landowner that have further stalled the project. The extended completion date for the project currently stands at November 28, 2027.

After hearing both parties on April 30, 2026, MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik passed a detailed order. The Authority observed that:

• No registered Agreement for Sale exists, which is a fundamental requirement under RERA.
• There is a major mismatch between the receipts produced by the complainant and the amounts acknowledged in the allotment letters.
• The complainant did not raise objections to this discrepancy for over five years.
• The genesis of the dispute lies in a pre-existing commercial debt for steel supplies, making the relationship between the parties unclear as promoter-allottee.
• The allotment letters do not mention any definite possession date.
• Due to ongoing court and arbitration proceedings, project completion remains highly uncertain.

MahaRERA rejected the complainant’s application to amend the relief from seeking refund to demanding possession. The Authority held that the dispute does not squarely fall within the ambit of RERA and is better suited for resolution as a civil/commercial matter before the appropriate civil court.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

This order underscores MahaRERA’s strict approach towards establishing a clear promoter-allottee relationship backed by proper documentation before granting relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

Also Read: MICL Group Expands South Mumbai Presence with ₹2,000 Cr Tardeo Redevelopment Deal

The post MahaRERA Dismisses Steel Supplier’s ₹6 Cr Refund Claim Against Mumbai Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a stark illustration of a promoter’s indifference even to the smallest directions of the regulator, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ordered SSK Realtors to refund more than ₹25 lakh plus interest to a homebuyer after the builder failed to pay a mere ₹2,000 cost imposed by the Authority.

The order, passed by Member Ravindra Deshpande on 22 April 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000198410, highlights how the promoter’s repeated non-compliance — including the inability or unwillingness to pay the token ₹2,000 — led to the matter being decided ex-parte and a full refund direction being issued under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Homebuyer Romy Thomas Melath had booked two flats — B-103 and B-104 in B Wing of Building No. 1 — in the promoter’s “Tulsi Darshan” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P99000005929). Two separate Agreements for Sale were executed on 31 December 2015, each for a consideration of ₹11,30,590. The complainant stated that he had paid a total of ₹25,21,491 towards the flats.

The project’s original proposed completion date was 31 July 2018. It was later revised to 28 July 2020 and extended till 23 July 2022. A further extension application (EXT99000012312) lapsed, and the project is yet to receive an Occupation Certificate. Construction, according to the complainant, has not progressed beyond the 4th slab level.

On 22 April 2025, MahaRERA had set aside an earlier ex-parte order against the promoter on the condition that SSK Realtors pay ₹2,000 as costs to the homebuyer. This small amount was meant to compensate the complainant and allow the promoter one final opportunity to present its side, upholding principles of natural justice.

The promoter paid nothing.

Despite due service of notice and link for the hearing held on 2 July 2025, none appeared for SSK Realtors. The Authority noted that the ₹2,000 had not been paid, and the matter proceeded ex-parte once again. The complainant’s advocate uploaded written arguments on 4 May 2025, after which the matter was reserved for orders.

In the final order, MahaRERA held that the promoter had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act. The Authority directed SSK Realtors to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer towards the two flats (excluding stamp duty, registration fees and other statutory charges) within 60 days from the date of the order. Interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Rules, 2017, will be payable on the refunded amount from 1 August 2018 till the date of actual realisation.

The Authority also directed both parties to execute and register cancellation deeds for the two Agreements for Sale once the refund is made. If the homebuyer had availed any loan creating a lien on the flats, he must first clear the dues to release the apartments from mortgage. The promoter has been given 30 days to apply for extension of the project registration, failing which it will face penalty under Section 63 of the Act. The order explicitly states that the promoter cannot claim the benefit of any COVID-related moratorium periods notified by MahaRERA.

Additionally, the promoter has been directed to pay ₹20,000 towards litigation costs to the complainant. Because the homebuyer filed a single complaint for two separate flats, MahaRERA imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the complainant payable to the Authority (accepted as a one-time exception to avoid multiplicity of proceedings).

All other reliefs sought by the complainant stand rejected.

This order underscores a recurring challenge before RERA authorities: when even a nominal cost of ₹2,000 cannot be paid by a promoter, the enforceability of large refund orders running into lakhs becomes a serious concern for homebuyers who have already waited years for their money.

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

The post Builder Couldn’t Pay ₹2,000 Cost, MahaRERA Orders ₹25 Lakh+ Refund to Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

Member II, Shri Ravindra Deshpande, passed the final order on January 12, 2026, in Complaint No. CC006000000302965 filed by Akshay Pandurang Manve against M/s. The Constructions Co. (a sole proprietorship), concerning the project “The Scenic Residency Phase-1” (MahaRERA Registration No. P99000005001).

How the Case Began: From “Friendly Loan” to Registered Flat Agreement

The dispute originated in January 2016 when the complainant, through family connections, invested ₹20,00,000 in three separate cheques dated January 26, 2017, with the respondent builder. At that stage, the transaction was described as a “friendly loan” or investment carrying 2% monthly interest, with an oral understanding that the amount would either be repaid after project completion or adjusted towards the purchase of flats (one 1BHK and one RK flat).

The builder honoured part of the initial arrangement by paying ₹3,71,300 in interest through nine separate cheques between March 2017 and August 2018.

Subsequently, on April 23, 2019, the parties executed a registered Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 004, Ground Floor, B Wing in the project, for the exact consideration of ₹20,00,000. Clause 4 of the agreement clearly stipulated that possession would be handed over on or before March 2020.

The project itself had been registered with MahaRERA on August 9, 2017.

Builder Fails to Deliver Possession

Despite the clear timeline, the builder failed to hand over possession by March 2020. No Occupation Certificate has been obtained to date, and construction progress remains reportedly below 50% (though the builder claimed ~75% in submissions).

When the complainant demanded a refund citing inordinate delay, the builder resisted, arguing that the entire transaction was merely a financial/business investment/loan and not a promoter-allottee relationship under RERA. The builder further justified the delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and statutory extensions granted by MahaRERA.

MahaRERA’s Landmark Reasoning

After hearing both sides on December 26, 2024, MahaRERA rejected the builder’s maintainability objection and held that:

1. Existence of Promoter-Allottee Relationship The execution of a registered Agreement for Sale on April 23, 2019, in which the builder described himself as “Promoter” and allotted a specific flat to the complainant for a lump-sum consideration, unequivocally created the statutory relationship of promoter and allottee under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act.
2. Nomenclature is not decisive Relying on precedents from the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (in Srushti Sangam Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sarvapriya Leasing) and earlier MahaRERA orders (e.g., Nitish Kumar Patel & Anr. vs. Garnet Construction Pvt. Ltd.), the Authority ruled that labels such as “investor” or “loan” do not override the true nature of the transaction. When the agreement transfers ownership rights in a specific unit, it is a sale – not a mere security or loan arrangement.
3. Prior interest payments irrelevant after registration The interest paid before the Agreement for Sale (₹3,71,300) cannot nullify the legal effect of the subsequent registered document.
4. Absolute & Unconditional Right under Section 18 Citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2021), MahaRERA held that an allottee’s right to withdraw from the project and claim refund with interest is unconditional and absolute when possession is not handed over by the agreed date – irrespective of force majeure events, COVID-19, or general statutory extensions granted for project registration validity.

MahaRERA also noted that the builder had not demonstrated compliance with MahaRERA Orders No. 40/2022 and No. 7/2019, which require either consent of the majority of allottees or detailed justification for further extensions beyond initial COVID-related grace periods.

Final Relief Granted

The Authority allowed the complaint in full and passed the following directions:

• The complainant is entitled to withdraw from the project.
• The builder must refund the entire ₹20,00,000 along with interest at SBI Highest MCLR + 2% per annum from April 1, 2020 (the day after the agreed possession date) till the date of actual realization.
• The ₹3,71,300 already paid as interest shall be adjusted against the total interest liability under this order.

This order reinforces that once a registered Agreement for Sale is executed for a specific apartment in a RERA-registered project, the protections of the Act – including the powerful refund remedy under Section 18 – become available, even when the transaction originated from an investment or loan arrangement.

Legal experts view this as an important clarification for cases where informal investments are later formalized through registered agreements, ensuring that homebuyers/investors are not left without RERA remedies.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post Investor Turned Flat Purchase Qualifies as ‘Allottee’ – Builder Ordered to Refund ₹20 Lakh + Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a case that exposes the limits of RERA as a safeguard for homebuyers, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ordered relief to three allottees—Pooja Dudani, Ashok Dudani and Bhavna Dudani—after a five-year delay in possession of their flat in Tycoons Valley Tower A (Emerald Wing), a project of Milestone Space in Kalyan (Reg. No. P51700009259).

The order highlights a painful truth: even with RERA in place and a registered agreement signed after the Act came into force, possession is not guaranteed on time.

Flat Booked in 2018, Promised Possession in 2019… Still Waiting in 2025

• Agreement Signed: 31 January 2018
• Promised Possession Date: 31 December 2019
• Flat: 606, Emerald Wing, Tycoons Valley
• Amount Paid: Approx. ₹37.9 lakh

Despite paying nearly 80% of the flat cost, the Dudani family says the project’s construction saw long periods of complete inactivity, forcing them into years of rent, financial stress, and health consequences, especially for senior citizen Ashok Dudani.

Homebuyers: Financial Loss, Emotional Toll, and Broken Promises

The complainants told MahaRERA:

• They were repeatedly promised possession — first in 2019, then 2021 — but deadlines kept shifting.
• They were assured ₹25,000 per month as rent compensation, which never materialized.
• Construction remained stalled for years, with no even basic updates from the promoter.
• They incurred rent expenses, medical costs, and mental distress over the extended delay.

Initially, they asked for refund + interest, but considering sunk costs and emotional investment, they later sought possession plus interest for the delayed period.

Promoter’s Defence: PILs, TDR Issues, Demonetisation, GST, COVID

Milestone Space claimed the delay was due to external and uncontrollable causes:

• Litigation around the Dombivli dumping ground causing CC delays
• Reservation and TDR complications
• GST rollout, demonetisation
• COVID-19 force majeure
• Financial crisis due to heavy infrastructure investment

The promoter argued that they received extensions up to 30 June 2024 under Section 7(3) and therefore cannot be faulted for the delay.

They also rejected the homebuyers’ request for free parking, offering only a 50% discount, which the complainants did not accept.

Conciliation Attempts Failed — Buyers Proposed Settlement, Promoter Declined

During hearings, the complainants presented a settlement proposal:

• 50% of the calculated delayed interest (~₹16 lakh)
• Free parking
• No interest on the remaining payable amount
• Compensation worth ₹5 lakh
• Fixed possession date with penalties

The promoter refused all except the waiver of interest on the pending amount, which led to the case moving to final adjudication.

MahaRERA: Delay is Undisputed, Homebuyers Entitled to Interest

MahaRERA observed:

• Promoter is bound by the 31 December 2019 possession date mentioned in the registered agreement.
• Delays of this magnitude clearly violate Section 18 of the RERA Act, which guarantees:
  • Interest for every month of delay, if the buyer chooses to stay in the project
  • OR refund + interest, if the buyer opts out

Since the complainants chose to continue with the project, they became entitled to monthly interest for the delay period, until possession is delivered.

Why This Case Matters

This order reinforces a harsh reality:

A RERA registration and a registered agreement do not guarantee timely possession.

Even after the Act came into effect, and even in a regulated environment, homebuyers can face:

• Multi-year delays
• No rent reimbursement
• Incomplete construction
• Uncertainty around delivery
• Long legal battles

The Dudani family’s case—spanning 5+ years of delay and multiple broken promises—is a stark reminder that RERA ensures accountability, but cannot prevent delays caused by poor planning, financial weakness, or regulatory issues.

Homebuyers Across Maharashtra Are Asking the Same Question

If RERA can penalize developers only after delays occur, does it really protect buyers from delays at all?

The Tycoons Valley case brings this debate back to the forefront.

Also Read: MahaRERA Officer Will Now Register Your Flat or Cancellation Deed if Builder Refuses

The post RERA Can’t Guarantee Delivery: MahaRERA Orders Justice After 5-Year Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

Homebuyer Victory: A Battle Against Unfair Forfeiture

Chetan Kaushal booked a 3BHK flat (Flat No. GGTB1C0201) in the Godrej Greens project in Pune in 2017, paying ₹5.42 lakh towards a total consideration of ₹51.64 lakh. Due to personal reasons, he sought cancellation in June 2018, but the developer forfeited the entire amount, citing terms in the application form. Aggrieved, Kaushal filed a complaint with MahaRERA in July 2020, seeking a refund with 18% interest and compensation. After a prolonged legal battle, including an appeal to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in 2021, MahaRERA’s latest ruling sides with the homebuyer, capping forfeiture at 2% (approximately ₹1.03 lakh), a stark contrast to the 10% previously imposed.

This outcome is a beacon for homebuyers, proving that developers cannot impose arbitrary penalties, especially when no agreement for sale was executed. Kaushal’s persistence highlights the importance of challenging one-sided clauses, a common grievance in India’s real estate sector.

Legal Journey: From Rejection to Restoration

Initially, MahaRERA rejected Kaushal’s claim in November 2020, citing no violation of Section 18 of RERA due to the absence of an agreed possession date and his admission of personal reasons for cancellation. However, the Appellate Tribunal overturned this on March 16, 2023, ordering a fresh hearing, allowing both parties to submit additional evidence. The case was reheard in May and July 2025 via video conferencing, with MahaRERA scrutinizing the developer’s forfeiture practices against its own 2022 circular limiting forfeiture to 2% for cancellations before sale agreements.

This reversal underscores the evolving judicial stance towards protecting allottees, ensuring developers adhere to fair practices even in pre-agreement stages—a critical win for homebuyers caught in similar predicaments.

What This Means for Homebuyers: Key Takeaways

MahaRERA’s order, effective from October 13, 2025, directs Dreamworld Landmarks LLP to refund the balance amount (after deducting 2%) within 45 days, by November 27, 2025. This ruling carries several implications for homebuyers:

• Capped Forfeiture: Developers can no longer forfeit more than 2% of the consideration for cancellations before a sale agreement, aligning with MahaRERA’s 2022 guidelines.
• No Interest or Compensation: Kaushal’s claim for 18% interest and legal costs was denied, as no RERA violation was proven, a reminder for buyers to secure clear possession timelines.
• Action Deadline: Homebuyers must monitor compliance, with the option to escalate non-compliance to MahaRERA post-November 27, 2025.

This decision empowers buyers to negotiate better terms and challenge excessive deductions, though it also highlights the need for watertight documentation from the outset.

Broader Impact: Strengthening Buyer Confidence in Pune’s Market

Pune’s real estate market, a hub for mid-segment and luxury homes, has seen robust growth, with H1 2025 recording a 12% rise in sales (Knight Frank). However, disputes like this erode trust, especially when developers impose hefty penalties. MahaRERA’s ruling could deter such practices, encouraging transparency in projects like Godrej Greens, registered under MahaRERA No. P52100023123. For homebuyers, it’s a call to leverage RERA provisions, ensuring fair treatment in an industry where cancellations often leave them at a loss. As Pune gears up for more launches in 2026, this verdict may prompt developers to revise cancellation policies, fostering a more buyer-friendly environment.

This victory for Chetan Kaushal is more than a personal triumph—it’s a step towards safeguarding every homebuyer’s investment in Maharashtra’s dynamic real estate landscape.

Also Read: Developer Faces Property Attachment for Ignoring MahaRERA Payment Order

The post MahaRERA Orders Refund for Homebuyer in Godrej Greens Dispute: A Win Against Excessive Forfeiture appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Case

Several buyers approached MahaRERA after suffering losses due to the delay. They alleged that despite revised deadlines, the project was not completed, leaving them in financial and emotional distress. Some buyers sought refunds of the money paid, while others demanded possession with interest for the delay.

MahaRERA’s Observations

• The builder neither completed construction nor applied for an extension of the registration.
• The promoter failed to appear during hearings and did not file any replies, leading the Authority to proceed ex-parte.
• Buyers with complete documentation were able to secure favourable orders, while incomplete records weakened some refund claims.

Final Order Highlights

What This Means for Homebuyers

• Keep your records: Agreements, payment receipts, and bank details are critical in RERA cases.
• Refunds possible: MahaRERA allows refunds with interest if possession is not given.
• Possession rights: Fully paid buyers can demand possession with compensation for delay.
• Builder accountability: Non-compliance and absence in hearings severely weaken the builder’s defense.

Bigger Picture

This order reinforces the role of MahaRERA as a protector of homebuyers’ rights in delayed or lapsed projects. It also underscores the importance of documentation for buyers seeking justice. For developers, it serves as a warning that ignoring deadlines and regulatory compliance will invite strict penalties.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund Paid for Seven Flats in Godrej RKS Project

The post MahaRERA Orders Refunds & Interest for Homebuyers, Possession with Delay Penalty in “Town Centre” Project appeared first on Square Feat India.