For years, thousands of flat buyers across India have lived in a peculiar legal limbo — they own their apartments, they pay their maintenance, their cooperative housing society is registered and functioning, and yet the land their building stands on remains in the name of the builder. The reason given, almost always, is that some other wing or tower in the same large layout is still under construction, and the builder insists that conveyance of land will happen only once everything is done. A Supreme Court bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has now firmly shut the door on that argument.

On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Mahanagar Realty, a Pune-based developer, against a Bombay High Court judgment delivered in February 2026. In doing so, it has affirmed a ruling that carries consequences far beyond the plot of land in Dhankawadi, Pune that sparked the original dispute. The judgment establishes, with the Supreme Court’s seal of approval, that a completed housing society is entitled to its proportionate share of land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) — regardless of whether the builder has finished constructing other buildings in the same layout.

How It All Began

The story begins in the early 2010s, when Mahanagar Realty proposed a large residential development on a 22,609 square metre plot on Pune-Satara Road in Dhankawadi. The project was to consist of four wings — A, B, C, and D — forming three independent sub-projects. Wings A and B were clubbed together as “Ganga Ishanya AB,” Wing C was a separate project called “Ganga Ishanya C,” and Wing D was envisioned under the name “Ganga Nakshatra.”

Flat buyers began signing agreements from 2011 onwards. Over the next several years, construction of Wings A, B, and C was completed. The occupancy certificate for Wings A and B came through in September 2018, and for Wing C in June 2021. Two separate co-operative housing societies were duly registered — one for Wings A and B, and another for Wing C. Members moved in, the buildings were fully functional, and yet no conveyance of land was executed by the developer in favour of either society.

2011

Original layout sanctioned for Wings A, B, C and a small ground+one floor Wing D. Flat purchase agreements begin.

2017–2022

Developer repeatedly revises sanctioned plans. Wing D is quietly expanded from a small commercial structure to a proposed 26-floor, 203-unit residential tower — without flat buyers’ explicit consent.

Sept 2018 & June 2021

Occupancy certificates issued for Wings A&B and Wing C respectively. Two co-operative housing societies registered. Land conveyance still not executed by developer.

2023

Both housing societies file Application No. 167 of 2023 before the District Deputy Registrar under Section 11 of MOFA, seeking deemed conveyance of their proportionate land share.

November 17, 2023

Competent Authority grants deemed conveyance — 11,890.53 sq.m. to Ganga Ishanya AB and 4,174.39 sq.m. to Ganga Ishanya C, calculated proportionately based on the 2018 sanctioned plan.

February 23, 2026

Bombay High Court (Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh) dismisses Mahanagar Realty’s writ petition, fully upholding the Competent Authority’s order.

April 10, 2026

Supreme Court dismisses Special Leave Petition. The societies’ land rights are now final and binding.

The Developer’s Objections

Mahanagar Realty’s opposition to the conveyance was not a blanket refusal — the developer acknowledged that some land had to be conveyed. The dispute was about how much. The developer produced an architect’s certificate showing smaller land entitlements for the two societies, which would have left a larger portion available for the under-construction Wing D. The developer argued that the competent authority had conveyed more land than the societies were entitled to, and that this made it practically impossible to complete Wing D as per the building permissions already granted.

The developer also leaned on a contractual clause present in some flat purchase agreements, which stated that conveyance would be executed to an apex society — comprising all three sub-projects — only after the last building in the entire layout was completed. In essence, the argument was: wait for Wing D to finish, and then everything will be conveyed together. The developer further contended that without a formal architect’s certificate placed before the competent authority, there was no proper basis for the area calculation.

What the Courts Found

The Bombay High Court was unimpressed by each of these arguments. On the question of the architect’s certificate, Justice Deshmukh noted that the calculation was straightforward arithmetic — the constructed built-up area of each wing as a proportion of total permissible FSI, multiplied by the total plot area, as directed by a Government Resolution of June 22, 2018. The sanctioned plan of 2018 was already on record and the built-up areas were undisputed. No separate architect’s certificate was needed for a calculation of this nature.

The architect’s certificate the developer sought to rely on was, in any event, disqualified on multiple grounds — it had been produced before the High Court for the first time (never placed before the competent authority), it was based on a revised 2022 sanctioned plan rather than the 2018 plan, and it came with a disclaimer that its figures were subject to a pending decision before the Pune Municipal Corporation. The court declined to place any reliance on it.

A builder cannot use the unfinished portion of a layout as a shield to indefinitely delay handing over land rights to residents whose buildings are long completed.

On the contractual clause requiring conveyance only after the apex society is formed, the High Court cited a coordinate bench ruling in Lok Housing & Construction Ltd vs State of Maharashtra, which had held that such clauses directly conflict with Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules. The law does not permit a developer to tie conveyance to an indeterminate future event — the completion of another building — no matter what the agreement says. A contractual term cannot override a statutory right.

The court went further and addressed what it found to be the real motive behind the developer’s resistance. Over the years, Mahanagar Realty had progressively revised the sanctioned plan for Wing D — from a modest ground-plus-one commercial structure envisioned in the 2011 plans to a 26-floor, 203-unit residential tower. To fund this enhanced construction, the developer had been loading additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The mathematical consequence of loading more TDR is that the proportionate share of already-completed buildings in the total plot area gets diluted. By opposing the area conveyed to the two societies, the court found, the developer was effectively asking the flat buyers of Wings A, B, and C to subsidise the enhanced construction of Wing D with their own land entitlement.

The Supreme Court, on April 10, 2026, saw no reason to interfere with this reasoning. The petition was dismissed without qualification.

What This Means for Flat Owners Across India

The immediate effect of this ruling is concrete and clear for the residents of Ganga Ishanya — their land is now theirs, legally and finally, without any further obstacle. But the significance of this judgment reaches well beyond one housing complex in Pune.

What This Ruling Means for You — If You Live in a Large Layout

• If your building is complete and your co-operative housing society is registered, you are entitled to seek deemed conveyance of your proportionate land share — even if other wings or towers in the layout are still being built.
• A builder cannot use the “wait for the apex society” or “wait for the last building” argument to delay your land rights indefinitely. Such clauses in sale agreements have been held to conflict with MOFA Rules.
• The proportionate area you are entitled to is calculated based on the sanctioned plan at the time your building was completed — the developer cannot dilute your share by loading additional TDR for other under-construction wings.
• You do not need to wait for the developer to voluntarily execute the conveyance deed. Section 11 of MOFA allows your society to approach the Competent Authority (District Deputy Registrar) directly for deemed conveyance.
• The Government Resolution of June 22, 2018 provides a clear formula for calculating proportionate land area in multi-building layouts. Competent authorities are bound to follow it.

India’s real estate landscape is full of large township projects and multi-tower layouts where some buildings have been completed and occupied for years while other phases remain under construction. In many of these cases, flat buyers have received their homes but not the land beneath them. Developers have routinely cited the ongoing construction in other phases as a reason to defer conveyance. This judgment categorically rejects that position.

The ruling also sends a pointed message about TDR manipulation. Where a developer seeks to enhance construction in an unfinished wing by loading additional development rights, courts will not allow this to come at the cost of residents in already-completed buildings. The FSI and TDR position as it stood when a building was completed will be the basis for calculating that building’s land entitlement — it cannot be retroactively diluted.

For housing societies considering action against their developers, this judgment provides a clear and well-reasoned legal foundation. The path to the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA is open, the formula for calculation is settled, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that no contractual sleight of hand can take away what the law guarantees.

As for Mahanagar Realty, the developer retains the remaining land and is free to continue constructing Wing D. But if the developer wishes to claim additional TDR benefits for an expanded Wing D, the High Court has made clear that the appropriate forum is a civil court — not a proceeding that compromises the land rights of the residents next door.

The post Landmark Verdict: Housing Societies Need Not Wait for Builder to Complete Entire Project to Claim Their Land, Rules Supreme Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

Delivered by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, the ruling dissects a Bengaluru project gone wrong, offering crystal-clear guidelines for JDA-based developments. It’s a wake-up call for homebuyers: Scrutinize your builder’s track record before signing on the dotted line.

The Project and Initial Dispute

The case revolves around “Unishire Terraza,” a residential apartment project in Thanisandra Village, Bengaluru. In February 2012, individual landowners—original owners of about 2 acres of land—signed a JDA with developer M/s Unishire Homes LLP. Under the deal, the developer got 64% of the built-up area and proportionate land rights, plus full authority via a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to handle construction, sales, and registrations for their share.

Starting in July 2013, the developer sold flats to homebuyers with promises of possession within 36 months, plus a 6-month grace period (due by February 2017). But the project stalled, with no handover even after six years. Frustrated buyers filed a consumer complaint in August 2017 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In its main order on October 19, 2023, the NCDRC pinned the blame squarely on the developer. It ordered completion of construction, obtaining an occupancy certificate, and possession handover within three months. The developer was also directed to pay 6% per annum interest on buyers’ deposits from the due date until possession offer, escalating to 9% if delayed further. Crucially, landowners were cleared of liability, as construction duties rested solely with the developer.

The Review Petition Saga: Twists and Turns

Unhappy with the order sparing the landowners, homebuyers filed a review petition in the NCDRC. They demanded that landowners be held jointly and severally liable for delays and construction completion, plus higher compensation at Rs. 5 per square foot per month (as per the sale agreements) with 6% interest.

In a surprise move, the NCDRC partly allowed the review on December 15, 2023, via an order passed in chambers (without open hearings). It flipped its stance, holding landowners jointly liable with the developer for finishing the project and paying delay compensation—but rejected the enhanced rate.

This chamber order sparked outrage from the landowners, who challenged it in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 9470/2024). On May 3, 2024, the apex court set aside the December order, ruling it invalid because landowners weren’t given a chance to argue their case—a basic breach of natural justice. The matter was sent back (remanded) to the NCDRC with strict instructions to rehear all parties and decide within six weeks.

After the rehearing, the NCDRC issued its final review order on July 30, 2024. Simplifying matters, it reversed the joint liability finding: Based on the JDA’s indemnity clauses (protecting landowners from developer faults) and GPA terms (giving the developer exclusive control over construction and sales), landowners could not be held responsible for delays. The developer alone remained liable for completion and compensation. However, to safeguard buyers’ rights, both landowners and the developer were ordered to jointly transfer clear title and execute sale deeds.

Supreme Court’s Final Hammer: No Joint Liability for Landowners

Homebuyers appealed the NCDRC’s July 2024 and original October 2023 orders to the Supreme Court, arguing a principal-agent relationship via the GPA made landowners vicariously liable. They cited clauses in sale agreements and past judgments to push for shared blame.

The Supreme Court dismissed these appeals outright. Analyzing JDA Clause 7 (mutual indemnities, with the developer shielding landowners from sub-sale issues) and GPA Clauses 2-3 (authorizing the developer to sell, receive payments, and convey titles for their share), the bench ruled that construction delays were the developer’s sole fault. No evidence linked delays to landowners’ actions, and no true principal-agent tie existed for construction lapses.

The Court stressed: Landowners are only jointly obligated for title transfer, not monetary penalties or build timelines. Cited precedents were deemed irrelevant or supportive of developer-only liability, as each case turns on its facts.

Massive Relief for Landowners and Housing Societies

This verdict is a lifeline for landowners in JDA partnerships, common in urban India where land-rich owners team up with cash-strapped developers. It shields them from being unfairly roped into consumer complaints for builder delays, as long as contracts clearly assign construction to developers with indemnity protections.

The ruling also extends comfort to co-operative housing societies, especially in redevelopment projects under laws like Maharashtra’s MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act). Societies often act like “landowners” in such deals, and this judgment clarifies they won’t face promoter-level liabilities for developer screw-ups—focusing regulation on builders instead.

Adv Vivekanand Gupta, an expert in real estate law, hailed the decision: “It’s a landmark judgement. A great relief to housing society and its Members. The Hon SC has rightly held that society cannot be held liable for delays caused due to the builders faults and it’s for the purchasers to sue the developer and not the society. The purpose of MOFA is to regulate promoters and developers, not to impose promoter-level obligations on cooperative housing societies redeveloping their own property. This judgement has settled the law bringing great relief to housing societies.”

Backed by thorough analysis of contracts and precedents, the judgment urges stronger oversight under RERA (Real Estate Regulation Act) to hold developers accountable, potentially reducing litigation and boosting trust in the sector.

The post Supreme Court Shocker: Landowners Off the Hook for Builder Delays – Homebuyers Must Chase Developers Alone in JDA Deals! appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgement was delivered on 23 June 2025 in Appeal No. AT005000000235139 of 2024 (Lalit Rade vs. Atul Ratnakar Mahashabde), overturning an earlier dismissal by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Case Background and Facts

• Homebuyer Lalit Rade booked a flat (No. 925, carpet area ≈513.46 sq.ft.) in the project “Tropica Phase-II” (MahaRERA Registration No. P2100008711, Pune), developed by Omkar Developers (with Atul Ratnakar Mahashabde as partner).
• The registered Agreement for Sale was executed on 9 March 2017, promising possession within 30 months + 6 months grace period (due date: effectively 6/9 September 2019).
• The buyer paid the full consideration of ₹36,94,150/- plus ₹2,83,428/- GST.
• The developer failed to deliver possession by the agreed date and had not obtained the OC even years later.
• In 2022, the buyer filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking possession with OC, amenities, and interest for delay under Section 18 of RERA.

MahaRERA’s Impugned Order (19 April 2024) MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, reasoning:

• “Soft possession” was allegedly given on 23 September 2023 via conciliation.
• Interest claim was an “afterthought” since possession was taken.
• No cause of action survived under Section 18 for possession.
• Amenity/defect issues were premature without OC.

MahaREAT’s Landmark Ruling The Tribunal (Coram: Justice S.S. Shinde, Chairperson, and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande) heard the appeal ex-parte (developer did not appear) and allowed it fully. Key holdings:

1. No successful conciliation existed — Records showed conciliation failed in 2019, and the matter was referred back for adjudication. The Authority wrongly assumed settlement and soft possession.
2. Soft/fit-out possession without OC is not lawful — Possession under RERA means handing over a completed, habitable flat with valid OC from the competent authority. Anything less (e.g., access for fit-outs while construction/approvals pending) does not discharge the developer’s obligation.
3. Right to interest under Section 18 is absolute and indefeasible — Citing Supreme Court judgements in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2020) and Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP (2021), the Tribunal held that once delay occurs beyond the agreed date (and buyer is not at fault), interest is payable unconditionally till lawful possession with OC. Full payment by buyer and no fault on their part strengthen the claim.
4. Developer’s liability continues — The promoter remains bound to obtain OC and hand over lawful possession.

Directions Issued

• Set aside the MahaRERA order of 19 April 2024.
• Developer to pay interest on ₹36,94,150/- at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%:
  • From 7 September 2019 till 23 June 2025 — payable within 30 days.
  • If delayed, further interest on outstanding amount (as on 23 July 2025) till realization.
  • Continuing interest at same rate from date of order till OC is obtained.
• Developer to obtain OC and hand over lawful possession with OC.
• Parties bear own costs.

Why This Matters for Homebuyers This ruling reinforces that developers cannot use “soft possession” as a tactic to escape interest liability for years-long delays. Homebuyers should:

• Insist on possession only with valid OC and all amenities.
• Not accept soft possession if it risks waiving delay compensation claims.
• Approach RERA/MahaREAT promptly for interest even after partial access.

Such judgements strengthen buyer protections under RERA and deter incomplete handovers.

Also Read: What Is Carpet Area?

The post Soft possession without OC is not lawful possession: MahaREAT rules in favour of homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute centres on “Sankalp Niwas,” a residential project in Khed, Pune, developed by Swarajya Developers and Builder. Buyer Deepak Sayaji Shinde booked a flat in October 2012 for ₹8,10,000, paying over ₹9.94 lakh including stamp duty. Possession was promised by October 2014, but the project remained incomplete, with only about 85% work done even years later. Spread over roughly 400 square metres and consisting of 24 units, the project was never registered under RERA despite being ongoing when the Act came into effect in 2017.

Shinde approached MahaRERA in 2019, asking the authority to direct the developer to register the project. MahaRERA rejected the plea in February 2020, holding that the project was exempt because its land area was below 500 square metres. On appeal, MREAT upheld this view and dismissed Shinde’s challenge.

The core issue was the interpretation of the exemption clause in Section 3(2)(a) of RERA, which states: no registration is required where “the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed five hundred square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases.”

In Maharashtra, this provision is interpreted disjunctively—the word “or” means a project is exempt if either condition is satisfied: land area ≤500 sq m (even if more than eight units) or ≤8 units (even if land area exceeds 500 sq m). Since the land here was under 500 sq m, the project qualified for exemption regardless of having 24 units. MahaRERA has reinforced this through its circulars, stating clearly that small-plot projects do not need registration irrespective of unit count, and vice versa for projects with few units.

Section 3(1) of RERA generally mandates registration for all real estate projects to ensure transparency and timely delivery, including ongoing projects without completion certificates as of May 2017. However, the exemptions under Section 3(2) override this for qualifying small projects, meaning promoters face no obligation to register, disclose details, or comply with RERA’s timelines and penalties.

For buyers in such unregistered projects, RERA’s powerful remedies—such as claiming interest for delays under Section 18, seeking refunds, or imposing penalties on developers under Section 59—are completely unavailable.

What options remain for affected homebuyers?

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019: File a complaint for “deficiency in service” before District, State, or National Consumer Commissions. Buyers can seek possession, compensation for delays (often with interest), or refunds. This has become the primary forum for grievances in exempt projects.
• Civil Courts: Sue for specific performance of the agreement (to force delivery of the flat), damages for breach of contract, or other relief under the Indian Contract Act or Specific Relief Act. While effective, civil suits can be slower and more expensive.
• Criminal Action (in extreme cases): If there is evidence of cheating or fraud, file an FIR under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
• Other Routes: In rare cases involving large dues, buyers may explore insolvency proceedings against the developer.

This judgment is a wake-up call for homebuyers: always check the project’s land area and unit count on the MahaRERA portal before booking. While the exemption aims to reduce regulatory burden on small developers, it can leave buyers in limbo, prompting ongoing debates about whether RERA needs amendments for better protection in such scenarios.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refund, Possession in Lapsed Bhayandar Project; Promoter Absent from Proceedings

The post You Won’t Be Able to Seek RERA Relief Even If Your Builder Doesn’t Give You Possession in These Cases appeared first on Square Feat India.

This principle was upheld in a December 23, 2025 order by MahaRERA Member II, Ravindra Deshpande, in the case of Rakesh Tailor & Anju Tailor vs. Virendra H. Doshi (successor to Dhanesh Builder). The decision rejects builders’ attempts to rely on COVID-19 extensions for escaping liability, emphasizing that buyers’ contractual rights remain absolute.

The Case Background

The complainants booked a flat in the “Siddharth Nagar Sukhvilla CHS Ltd. Phase-2” project in Goregaon West, Mumbai (MahaRERA No. P51800021400) for ₹1.71 crore. The registered Agreement for Sale, executed on December 21, 2020, explicitly promised possession by September 30, 2021.

Despite this, the Occupancy Certificate (OC) was obtained only on July 28, 2022, and possession handed over on August 1, 2022—resulting in a delay of nearly 10 months. The buyers filed a complaint seeking interest under Section 18 of RERA for the delay period.

The original promoter passed away in 2022, and the proprietorship devolved to his brother, the respondent.

Builder’s Defence: COVID Extensions and Force Majeure

The builder argued no liability for delay, citing:

• The COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure event under Clause 10 of the agreement.
• MahaRERA circulars (e.g., from 2020) granting automatic 6-9 month extensions to project timelines, deeming possession dates extended accordingly.
• The project’s revised completion date on the portal as September 30, 2022.

They claimed the construction finished by March 2022 and OC by July 2022 fell within the extended timeline.

MahaRERA’s Key Findings

MahaRERA partly allowed the complaint, directing the builder to pay interest, while rejecting the COVID defence:

• The agreement was signed in December 2020, post the initial COVID waves, so the builder should have factored in ongoing challenges when committing to September 30, 2021.
• MahaRERA’s COVID moratorium on interest (Order No. 14) covered only March 15, 2020 to September 14, 2020—not the post-2021 delay here.
• Extensions applied to overall project registration dates but do not override individual possession commitments in Agreements for Sale.
• Citing the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2017), MahaRERA held that the right to delay interest is “unconditional and absolute,” regardless of unforeseen events or portal extensions.

Interest was awarded only on ₹1.21 crore (amount paid by the agreed possession date), from October 1, 2021 to July 28, 2022, at the prescribed rate: SBI’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2% (currently around 10.70-10.80% based on latest SBI rates effective December 15, 2025).

Implications for Homebuyers and Builders

This order sends a strong message:

• For Buyers: Scrutinize the possession date in your registered Agreement for Sale—it’s binding and protects you from unilateral extensions.
• For Builders: Cannot hide behind portal revisions or past pandemics if the individual contract specifies an earlier date. Due diligence in committing timelines is crucial.
• Broader Impact: Reinforces Section 18 of RERA, making delay compensation near-automatic if buyers opt to stay in the project.

With SBI’s current highest MCLR at approximately 8.80% (three-year tenor as of December 2025), the effective interest rate stands over 10%, providing substantial relief amid rising loan costs.

Conclusion

As India’s real estate sector matures under RERA, rulings like this prioritize contractual certainty and buyer rights. Homebuyers facing delays should promptly approach MahaRERA—evidence of the agreed date often seals the case.

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

The post Individual Agreement Possession Dates Prevail Over Extended RERA Project Timelines for Calculating Delay Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a landmark ruling that brings much-needed clarity and hope to homebuyers across Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has affirmed that a registered Agreement for Sale is not essential for seeking relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This decision, pronounced on December 19, 2025, in Appeal No. AT06/00733 of 2025, underscores that documents like allotment letters, payment receipts, and correspondence can form a valid contract enforceable under RERA, even for pre-RERA bookings. For countless homebuyers stuck in delayed projects without formal agreements, this verdict is a beacon: your rights are protected, and you can demand refunds with interest from the date of payment, not just from delayed possession dates.

The case revolves around two Mumbai-based residents, Krupa Samir Kapadia (31, a consultant) and Pooja Samir Kapadia (35, an Intellectual Property lawyer), both residing at Walkeshwar. In November 2012, they booked two adjacent flats – Flat No. 503 in Pooja’s name and Flat No. 504 in Krupa’s name – in Phase V, Building No. 17 of the “Lake Riveira” project (Wings A and B) developed by Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd. The project, located at Kharwai Gaon, Badlapur (East), Thane district, was registered with MahaRERA under No. P51700001928. Each flat measured 650 sq. ft. carpet area and was priced at Rs. 13,00,000, making the total consideration Rs. 26,00,000 for both.

At the time of booking, the Kapadias paid 75% of the amount upfront – Rs. 9,75,000 per flat, totaling Rs. 19,50,000 – as acknowledged in an allotment letter dated November 11, 2012. The balance was to be paid upon possession. The developer, Siddhitech Homes Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Hemant Agarwal (office at Dadar West), assured possession by September 2014. A follow-up letter from the developer dated March 30, 2013, further promised 24% per annum interest if possession was delayed beyond 18 months from October 2014, effectively setting an implied deadline of April 2016.

However, no registered Agreement for Sale was ever executed, despite the substantial payment. The project faced repeated delays: the proposed completion date was initially October 30, 2017, extended to December 31, 2019, and then to December 30, 2021. As of 2025, the project remains incomplete, with no Occupation Certificate (OC) issued. The developer cited a stay order from the Municipal Corporation and potential insolvency proceedings under the National Company Law Tribunal as reasons, but the Tribunal dismissed these as not qualifying as “force majeure” under RERA Section 6, which limits such excuses to natural calamities like floods or earthquakes.

Frustrated after over a decade of waiting, the Kapadias issued a legal notice on February 15, 2023, demanding cancellation and refund with interest. Receiving no response, they filed Complaint No. CC006000000395534 with MahaRERA on May 4, 2023. They sought refund of Rs. 19,50,000 with interest from November 2012, plus Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and lost opportunities in finding alternative housing.

MahaRERA’s Chairperson, in an order dated May 29, 2025, allowed the complaint partially. Recognizing the payments and delays, it permitted withdrawal under RERA Section 18 and ordered the refund within 60 days. However, interest was granted only from November 1, 2017 – the project’s declared completion date on the MahaRERA website – not from the payment dates. No compensation was awarded, as the authority noted the absence of a specific possession date in the allotment letter.

Aggrieved by the interest start date, the Kapadias appealed to MREAT, represented by Advocate Bruno Castellino. The developer, defended by Advocate Khushnumah Banerjee, argued that without a committed possession date or a formal agreement, no delay existed, and the allotment letter was flawed (issued initially in Krupa and Anita Samir Kapadia’s names, not Pooja’s). They also claimed the March 2013 letter was merely an offer, not a binding promise.

In a detailed 22-page judgment authored by Member (Administrative) Shrikant M. Deshpande and concurred by Chairperson S.S. Shinde, MREAT partly allowed the appeal. Key findings:

• Valid Contract Without Registered Agreement: Examining the allotment letter, payment receipts, and March 2013 letter, the Tribunal held they fulfill the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requirements – offer, acceptance, and consideration. The documents identify the project, flats, consideration, and payments, forming a “concluded contract.” Discrepancies in names were overlooked, as receipts and correspondence confirmed the sale to both sisters. The developer did not dispute the signatures or payments.
• RERA’s Retroactive Application: Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2021), the Tribunal affirmed RERA’s retroactive nature for ongoing projects. Since “Lake Riveira” was registered post-2016 but booked in 2012 under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) regime, RERA protections apply, allowing enforcement of pre-RERA documents.
• Possession Date and Delay: Even without an explicit date, the March 2013 letter implies October 2014. Alternatively, per Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018), a reasonable time is three years from booking – November 2015. The ongoing incompletion constitutes delay, entitling relief under RERA Section 18.
• Interest from Payment Date: Overturning MahaRERA, interest must start from November 11, 2012, as per RERA Section 2(za) and Supreme Court precedents like Experion Developers v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022) and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure v. Govindan Raghavan (2019). The rate is SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) + 2%. Refund deadline: 30 days from the order (by January 18, 2026), with penal interest thereafter.
• No Compensation: The Rs. 25 lakh claim for mental agony was not granted, as the judgment focused on refund and interest as primary remedies.

This ruling is a game-changer for homebuyers. It clarifies that developers cannot hide behind the lack of a registered agreement to deny accountability. If you’ve paid significant amounts and hold proof like allotment letters or receipts, you can approach MahaRERA for refunds with interest from Day One – even for old projects. As the Tribunal emphasized, RERA safeguards consumers by regulating the sector retroactively, ensuring transparency and fairness. Homebuyers in similar situations should gather their documents and consult legal experts promptly. For Siddhitech’s buyers in “Lake Riveira,” this could open doors for collective action.

The developer has not challenged the original MahaRERA order, implying acceptance of the refund obligation. With insolvency looming, affected allottees should monitor proceedings closely.

Also Read: Possession Without an Agreement for Sale? MahaRERA Cracks Down on Builder

The post A Registered Agreement for Sale Is NOT Mandatory for RERA Relief appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling with far-reaching consequences for housing societies across Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) has held that a co-operative housing society involved in area or FSI sharing with a developer can be treated as a “promoter” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The order was passed in a batch of appeals filed by Shri Sai Vishram Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which had challenged a MahaRERA order holding it jointly and severally liable along with developers for delay in possession and payment of interest to homebuyers.

Background: Stalled Redevelopment and Homebuyers’ Claims

The dispute arose from a stalled redevelopment project in Borivali, Mumbai. The society had initially entered into a redevelopment agreement with a developer in 2010. Due to non-performance, the society terminated the agreement and later appointed a new developer.

Several flat purchasers who had booked flats with the earlier developer approached MahaRERA seeking interest for delayed possession. MahaRERA allowed their complaints and held the society, along with the developers, jointly liable.

The society challenged this finding before the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that:

• It was merely a landowner
• It had no privity of contract with the homebuyers
• It was not registered as a promoter under RERA

Key Legal Question: Is the Society a ‘Promoter’ Under RERA?

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the housing society could be considered a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of RERA, which would trigger:

• Liability towards homebuyers
• Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) to pursue an appeal

Tribunal’s Finding: FSI Sharing Makes Society a Landowner-Promoter

After examining the redevelopment agreement, the Tribunal noted that:

• The society was entitled to 50% of the additional constructed area arising from extra FSI
• This constituted a clear area-sharing arrangement
• Such an arrangement brings the society within the scope of MahaRERA Circular No. 12/2017

Under this circular, landowners or societies who share area or revenue from a project are deemed promoters, even if they do not directly sell flats.

The Tribunal held that by sharing FSI-linked constructed area, the society had commercial participation in the project, making it a landowner-promoter under RERA.

Why Earlier High Court Judgments Did Not Help the Society

The society relied on earlier Bombay High Court rulings such as Vaidehi Akash Housing and Goregaon Pearl, which held that societies are not promoters when they merely permit redevelopment.

However, the Tribunal distinguished those cases, observing that:

• In those matters, there was no area or revenue sharing
• In the present case, FSI benefits were contractually shared

This factual difference proved decisive.

Consequences: Joint Liability and Mandatory Pre-Deposit

Since the society was held to be a promoter:

• It was required to deposit the amount awarded to homebuyers, along with interest
• This deposit is mandatory under Section 43(5) of RERA before the appeal can be heard on merits
• The society cannot escape liability merely by claiming it did not sign agreements with purchasers

Why This Order Is Crucial for Homebuyers

This ruling strengthens homebuyer protection by:

• Preventing landowners and societies from distancing themselves after benefiting from redevelopment
• Ensuring multiple accountable parties for delay and non-delivery
• Reinforcing RERA’s principle that commercial benefit attracts responsibility

Homebuyers are no longer restricted to chasing only the developer if the society has financially benefited from the project structure.

Major Impact on Redevelopment Societies Across Maharashtra

The order sends a clear warning to housing societies:

• If you share FSI, additional flats, or revenue, you may be treated as a promoter
• Promoter status means:
  • RERA compliance
  • Exposure to delay interest claims
  • Financial liability to homebuyers

Legal experts warn that societies must now carefully structure redevelopment agreements and fully understand the risks before agreeing to area-sharing models.

Conclusion

The MahaREAT ruling underscores that substance prevails over form under RERA. Even if a housing society does not sell flats directly, sharing development benefits is enough to attract promoter status and liability.

For both housing societies and homebuyers, this order marks a pivotal moment in redevelopment jurisprudence under RERA.

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

The post Housing Society Treated as Promoter in Redevelopment Dispute If It Shares.. appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling that could reshape how real estate development agreements are interpreted in India, the Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award clarifying that the term “built-up area wall to wall” effectively means “carpet area.” The judgment, delivered on November 25, 2025, by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, dismissed a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an arbitral award from December 21, 2020. This case, Bhupatbhai Ravjibhai Lukhi & Ors. vs. Tormal Dedraj Sainik @ Mali (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Anr., revolves around a disputed development agreement for a property in Mumbai, highlighting ambiguities in area measurements and their implications for landowners and developers.

The decision emphasizes a “commercially commonsensical” approach to contract interpretation, drawing on Supreme Court precedents to ensure business efficacy. It serves as a reminder for real estate stakeholders to draft agreements with precision, especially regarding area definitions, to avoid protracted disputes.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to a Development Agreement dated October 20, 2010, between the petitioners—Bhupatbhai Ravjibhai Lukhi, Deepak Jamsandekar, and Sunil Lukhi, partners of Lukhi Associates (collectively, the “Developer”)—and the respondents, legal heirs of the late Tormal Dedraj Sainik (referred to as “Tormal”) and Mahesh Dadraj Sainik (“Mahesh”). The land in question, located in Mumbai, was owned by siblings Tormal, Mahesh, and Kailash Dedraj Sainik, along with other family members who signed as confirming parties.

The property was described in the agreement’s schedule as measuring 1,053 square yards (equivalent to 880.31 square meters physically), though the property card recorded only 819.30 square meters—a discrepancy of 61.01 square meters explicitly noted in the document. Kailash assigned his rights to the Developer for ₹1.90 crores and did not participate in the dispute. Another individual, Deepak Chirangilal Sainik, entitled to a small flat, settled separately.

Under the agreement, the Developer was to construct a building within 24 months from possession handover on May 2, 2011. The landowners were entitled to flats aggregating 5,000 square feet of “built-up area wall to wall”: Tormal to four flats totaling 2,500 sq ft, Mahesh to three flats totaling 2,270 sq ft, and Deepak to one flat of 230 sq ft. The Developer could purchase Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to enhance potential but had to share any additional Floor Space Index (FSI) proportionately.

Outgoings like property taxes were the landowners’ responsibility until completion, after which they shifted to the Developer. Rentals were stipulated: ₹8.4 lakhs for the first 12 months, ₹9.24 lakhs for the next 12, with 10% annual escalation thereafter, or ₹1 crore per year after 36 months if possession was delayed.

Construction was completed in September 2017, with an occupation certificate issued on August 24, 2017—well beyond the deadline, leading to claims for delay penalties and additional FSI shares, which were rejected by the arbitral tribunal.

The Core Disputes

Disputes arose when the landowners claimed the delivered flats fell short of their entitlements. They argued the area provided was 1,212 sq ft less than the agreed 5,000 sq ft (excluding Deepak’s settled portion), seeking compensation of approximately ₹3.27 crores at ₹27,000 per sq ft—a rate both parties agreed upon for valuation.

The Developer countered that the land’s developable area was limited to 819.30 sq m as per the property card, reducing the overall potential by 61.01 sq m. This, they claimed, justified delivering only 4,343 sq ft proportionally, though they asserted having provided 4,427.60 sq ft. They sought a credit of ₹4.78 crores for the alleged over-delivery.

Additional issues included:

• Delay penalties beyond 36 months, with landowners demanding ₹1 crore annually.
• Claims for a two-thirds share in an alleged 1,500 sq ft additional FSI, valued at ₹4.05 crores.
• Interpretation of “built-up area wall to wall”—whether it included wall areas (as per built-up standards) or excluded them (as carpet area).

The landowners also raised concerns over outgoings post-2017, but the tribunal ruled in the Developer’s favor on delays and additional FSI, findings not challenged further.

The Arbitral Proceedings and Impugned Award

The matter went to arbitration due to unresolved differences. In the award dated December 21, 2020, the sole arbitrator rejected the Developer’s claim of surprise over the land area discrepancy, noting it was explicitly stated in the agreement. The Developer had conducted a survey but failed to produce the plan, and the issue was raised only during arbitration—not contemporaneously.

On area measurement, the arbitrator interpreted “built-up area wall to wall” as “carpet area,” meaning usable floor space excluding walls. Referencing Development Control Regulations (DCR) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the tribunal defined:

• Built-up Area: Total floor area excluding FSI-exempted spaces.
• Carpet Area: Net usable area, excluding external walls, service shafts, balconies, etc., but including internal partitions.

Applying this, the shortfall was calculated at 1,310.34 sq ft (573 sq ft in built-up terms adjusted for carpet), leading to compensation for the landowners.

The award also dismissed non-joinder of all heirs as parties, holding that the claim pertained only to Tormal and Mahesh’s specific entitlements.

The High Court’s Ruling

The Developer challenged the award under Section 34, arguing:

• The land area discrepancy invalidated proportional reductions.
• “Built-up area wall to wall” could not mean carpet area, and the relief exceeded the claim (1,310.34 sq ft vs. 1,212 sq ft).
• Non-joinder of all heirs vitiated proceedings.
• A belated conflict of interest allegation against the arbitrator (dismissed for lack of pleadings).

Justice Sundaresan upheld the award, finding the arbitrator’s interpretations plausible and logical. On land area, the court noted the explicit schedule mention precluded surprise, and the defense seemed equity-based rather than factual.

Regarding “built-up area wall to wall,” the court endorsed the carpet area view as commercially sensible, citing Supreme Court cases like Nabha Power Ltd. v. Punjab SPCL (2018) for “business efficacy” and the “officious bystander test.” The slight variance in shortfall was a logical extension of the interpretation, not exceeding jurisdiction.

Non-joinder was rejected as the claim focused on specific flats, not requiring all confirming parties. The scope under Section 34 was reiterated as limited, per precedents like Dyna Technologies (2019) and Associate Builders (2015), prohibiting substitution of plausible views.

The petition was dismissed without costs, considering the civil nature and partial Developer wins.

Implications for Real Estate Sector

This judgment reinforces consumer protection in real estate by prioritizing usable space over gross measurements, aligning with RERA’s emphasis on transparency. Developers must now ensure precise definitions in agreements to avoid ambiguities. It may influence ongoing disputes and encourage clearer drafting, potentially reducing arbitration reliance.

For buyers, it underscores the importance of scrutinizing area clauses, while developers face risks in unilateral adjustments based on property records.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in this case sets a precedent for interpreting ambiguous real estate terms through a lens of commercial reasonability. As India’s real estate market grows, such clarity could foster fairer dealings and fewer litigations, benefiting all stakeholders.

Also Read: Hearsay Can’t Make You Pakistani: Bombay HC Quashes Enemy Property Tag

The post Bombay High Court Clarifies ‘Built-Up Area Wall to Wall’ Equals Carpet Area in Real Estate Development Dispute appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background of the MahaRERA Order

The MahaRERA order addressed three complaints (CC006000000580907, CC006000000591319, and CC006000000591602) filed by homebuyers Mohammed Jaffer Imamuddin Sayed, Vinita and Shailendra Kumar Singh, and Abhash Sharma. These allottees, who booked flats in the Indiabulls Park 4 project (MahaRERA Registration No. P52000000475) in Panvel, Raigad, sought remedies for delayed possession and refunds under Section 18 of RERA. The developer, Lucina Land Development Limited, argued that the complaints were not maintainable due to arbitration clauses in the agreements for sale, specifically Clause 45, which mandated dispute resolution through arbitration.

The complaints highlighted significant delays in the project, with possession dates promised between November 2020 and April 2023 (including grace periods) remaining unfulfilled. The developer attributed delays to force majeure events, including a CIDCO stop-work notice (2017–2019), changes in planning authority, and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the arbitration clause issue became a central point of contention, as the developer sought to divert the disputes away from MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.

Bombay High Court’s Ruling: A Game-Changer

MahaRERA’s decision to reject the arbitration clause was grounded in a significant Bombay High Court judgment delivered on October 25, 2024, in Second Appeal No. 434 of 2023. The court held that “the dispute between the individual allottee and the promoter or the dispute between the Association of the Allottees and the Promoter covered under Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 is non-arbitral in nature.” Furthermore, it clarified that “the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under Section 20 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 is not ousted, even if the agreement between the promoter and the allottee contains arbitration clause.”

This ruling effectively dismantled the developer’s argument that MahaRERA lacked jurisdiction due to the arbitration clause. By invoking this precedent, MahaRERA affirmed its authority to adjudicate the complaints, ensuring that homebuyers could seek direct relief under RERA without being compelled to pursue arbitration, which can be costly, time-consuming, and biased toward developers.

MahaRERA’s Stance on Arbitration Clauses

In its order, MahaRERA emphasized that the complainants had consciously chosen to invoke its jurisdiction rather than resorting to arbitration. The authority noted that the homebuyers filed their complaints under Section 31 of RERA, seeking possession, refunds, and interest for delays, as provided under Section 18. By rejecting the developer’s objection, MahaRERA clarified that arbitration clauses in agreements for sale do not override the statutory remedies available under RERA.

This stance aligns with the legislative intent of RERA, which aims to provide a specialized, consumer-friendly forum for resolving real estate disputes. The authority’s reliance on the Bombay High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s support for protecting homebuyers from contractual clauses that could undermine their access to justice.

Implications for Homebuyers

The MahaRERA ruling has far-reaching implications for property investors across Maharashtra and beyond:

• Direct Access to MahaRERA: Homebuyers can now approach MahaRERA without fear of being redirected to arbitration, ensuring faster and more accessible dispute resolution.
• Protection Against Developer Tactics: Arbitration clauses, often embedded in agreements to shield developers, are now ineffective in RERA disputes, leveling the playing field for allottees.
• Clarity on Legal Recourse: The ruling reinforces that RERA is the primary forum for addressing issues like delayed possession, refunds, and interest, empowering homebuyers to seek statutory remedies.
• Encouragement for Due Diligence: Investors are advised to review agreements carefully, recognizing that arbitration clauses cannot bar them from MahaRERA’s jurisdiction.

Broader Impact on the Real Estate Sector

This decision marks a significant shift in the real estate landscape, compelling developers to prioritize compliance with RERA provisions. By invalidating arbitration clauses, MahaRERA and the Bombay High Court have curtailed a common strategy used by developers to delay or complicate dispute resolution. This ruling is likely to:

• Enhance Transparency: Developers may revise agreements to align with RERA’s consumer-centric framework, reducing reliance on arbitration clauses.
• Boost Consumer Confidence: Homebuyers, assured of MahaRERA’s jurisdiction, may feel more secure investing in real estate projects.
• Set a National Precedent: Other state RERA authorities may adopt similar interpretations, creating a uniform approach to handling arbitration clauses in real estate disputes.

Details of the MahaRERA Order

While the arbitration clause ruling was a focal point, MahaRERA also addressed the substantive issues in the complaints:

• Complaints 1 and 2 (Possession with Interest): Mohammed Jaffer and Vinita Singh were granted interest on delayed possession from February 1, 2025, at SBI’s MCLR plus 2%, payable after the project’s Occupancy Certificate is obtained. The developer was directed to set off any outstanding dues against the interest, ensuring no further demands if the interest exceeds dues.
• Complaint 3 (Refund with Interest): Abhash Sharma was awarded a refund of ₹25,87,308 with interest, to be paid in six monthly installments within six months, with a charge on the flat until payment is complete.
• Rejections: Claims for compensation and statutory dues were dismissed, with MahaRERA noting that compensation requires adjudication by a separate officer, and statutory dues are outside RERA’s ambit.

The authority also rejected the developer’s claims of prematurity and force majeure, holding that possession dates in registered agreements are binding unless amended with allottee consent.

Advice for Homebuyers

For property investors, this ruling offers critical lessons:

• Understand RERA Protections: Familiarize yourself with Section 18, which guarantees remedies for delays, and Section 31, which allows complaints to be filed with MahaRERA.
• Scrutinize Agreements: Look for arbitration clauses and recognize that they cannot override your right to approach MahaRERA.
• Act Promptly: File complaints with MahaRERA if developers fail to deliver on time, as delays in possession or project completion are actionable under RERA.
• Seek Legal Guidance: Consult experts to navigate complex agreements and ensure your rights are protected in disputes.

Conclusion

MahaRERA’s November 10, 2025, order, bolstered by the Bombay High Court’s October 25, 2024, ruling, is a decisive victory for homebuyers. By declaring arbitration clauses inapplicable in RERA disputes, the authority has ensured that allottees can seek justice directly through a transparent and accessible forum. This development not only safeguards the interests of homebuyers in the Indiabulls Park 4 project but also sets a robust precedent for the real estate sector. For prospective investors, the message is clear: RERA empowers you to hold developers accountable, and MahaRERA is your ally in securing your rights.

Also Read: MahaRERA Must Allow In-Person Hearings Too, Rules Bombay High CourtVirtual-only model no longer acceptable; hybrid system mandatory within four weeks

The post MahaRERA Rejects Arbitration Clauses in Real Estate Disputes, Upholds Homebuyer Rights appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Kamal Khata delivered the verdict on November 4, 2025, while dismissing multiple appeals filed by Satish Inamdar and Swapna Inamdar, who had purchased flats in a redevelopment project at Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), initiated by developer Amogh Sawant.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around redevelopment of a MHADA-leased plot (Survey No. 229 & 267, CTS No. 6 part) belonging to Nehru Nagar Vidyut Vilas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The Society had earlier appointed Amogh Sawant, sole proprietor of M/s Adit Enterprises, as its developer under a 2008 development agreement.

Over time, several third-party buyers entered into agreements, MoUs, or allotment letters with Sawant for the free-sale flats in the project. However, in 2015, the Society terminated his development rights and subsequently appointed Kabra Infrastructure and Developers LLP as the new developer. The arbitration award in 2022 upheld the termination and dismissed Sawant’s counterclaim.

The flat purchasers then approached the court, arguing that they had paid substantial amounts and held valid sale agreements executed when the earlier development agreement and power of attorney were still in force. They sought to restrain the Society and the new developer from demolishing or constructing the building without recognizing their rights.

Court’s Findings

Justice Khata observed that the question before the Court was whether third-party purchasers could assert rights through a developer whose appointment was lawfully terminated.

The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and had been settled through a series of prior judgments including:

• Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. D.N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd. (2014)
• Goregaon Pearl CHS vs. Dr. Seema Mahadev Paryekar (2019)
• Deepak Prabhakar Thakoor vs. MHADA (2023)
• Kapilkunj CHS vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)
• Tuvin Constructions LLP vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)

All these cases reaffirmed that once a society terminates a development agreement, flat purchasers claiming through that developer lose all derivative rights. The Society cannot be treated as a “promoter” under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), nor can the new developer be held liable for sales made by the terminated developer.

The Court clarified that such buyers’ remedies, if any, lie only against the erstwhile developer, not the Society or the new developer.

Key Legal Principles Highlighted

1. No Privity of Contract: Purchasers of flats through the terminated developer have no direct contractual relationship with the Society.
2. Society Not a Promoter: As the landowner, the Society cannot be saddled with statutory promoter obligations under MOFA.
3. Developer’s Termination Valid: Once the arbitration award upholding the termination becomes final, it binds all parties claiming through that developer.
4. Buyers’ Remedies Limited to Damages: The only legal recourse available to such buyers is to seek damages or recovery from the original developer.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that homebuyers purchasing from a developer whose contract is later terminated cannot claim rights in the Society’s property. The Court emphasized that redevelopment primarily exists to rehabilitate society members and cannot be obstructed by third-party claims arising from the terminated developer’s actions.

Also Read: Renewal of Lease = New Lease, Attracts Stamp Duty Bombay High Court

The post Bombay High Court: Flat Buyers In Redevelopment Project Can’t Claim Rights Against Society After Developer’s Termination appeared first on Square Feat India.