NOMINAL INDEX
Rensar Infra Private Limited v. Rais Kasam Shaikh & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 550
M/s Selene Estates Limited v. M/s Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association – Jalladianpettai & Others, 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 76
Sachin Prakash Dhavle, Authorised Partner, M/s P.R. Builders & Developers v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 75
Vikas Gupta v. IREO Waterfront Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 148
Cherukuri Hema & Anr. v. M/s PBSR Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 149
Madhu Alvani & Anr. v. Sai Enterprises & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 150
Bombay High Court
Are All Promoter-Allottee RERA Disputes Non-Arbitrable? Bombay HC Refers Question To Larger Bench
Case Title Rensar Infra Private Limited v. Rais Kasam Shaikh & Ors
Case Number Arbitration Application No. 205 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 550
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether every dispute between a real estate promoter and an individual flat buyer under an agreement for sale governed by RERA is non-arbitrable as a class.
The court will consider whether arbitrability must instead be examined by looking at the subject matter, nature of relief and the matters RERA authorities are empowered to determine.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “The issue is whether the existence of a statutory forum under RERA and its public nature takes the entire promoter-allottee class outside private arbitration, or whether the Court has to examine the exact relief, subject matter and nature of dispute in every case.”
The court, therefore, referred the question to a larger bench.
"Whether, having regard to Sections 79, 88 and 89 and the other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a dispute arising between an individual promoter and allottee under an Agreement for Sale containing an arbitration clause is, merely because the relationship and transaction are governed by RERA, nonarbitrable as a class, or whether the arbitrability must be examined by reference to the subject matter, nature of relief and the matters which the statutory authorities under RERA are empowered to determine; and, consequently, whether the conclusion in paragraph 63(i) of Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Rajendrakumar Pagariya, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3871, is to be understood as a general rule of non-arbitrability of all such disputes, notwithstanding the reasoning in Abhay Damodar Kanhere v. Morya Infraconstruct Pvt. Ltd, Arbitration Petition No.148 of 2024, and the principles governing limited scrutiny under Section 11 as held by the Supreme Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd,(2024) 5 SCC 313, Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation ,(2021) 2 SCC 1 and NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd,(2023) 9 SCC 385?”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Tamil Nadu REAT
Companies Not Bound By Original RERA Order Cannot Be Added During Its Enforcement: Tamil Nadu REAT
Case Title M/s Selene Estates Limited v. M/s Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association – Jalladianpettai & Others
Case Number Appeal Nos. 88 and 89 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 76
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 7 October held that parties not bound by an original order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) cannot be impleaded in proceedings to execute that order, and partly allowed two appeals filed by Selene Estates Limited.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu set aside the impleadment of Lakisha Real Estate Limited, Airmid Infrastructure Limited and Ozone Facility Management Private Limited in execution proceedings initiated by the Green Apartment Owners Welfare Association, but upheld the impleadment of three directors of Selene Estates. It observed:
“When the original order was passed as against the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3, it is not binding on the other respondents who were not parties in the original complaint in C.No.29 of 2023. A Decree Holder cannot be allowed to implead new parties in piecemeal in the Execution Proceedings.”
Maharashtra REAT
Promoter's Pre-Deposit Can Be Released To Homebuyer After Promoter's Appeal Fails: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title Sachin Prakash Dhavle, Authorised Partner, M/s P.R. Builders & Developers v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number Misc. Application No. 693 of 2026 in Appeal No. AT05/00605 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 75
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a promoter's pre-deposit made while challenging an order can be released to the allottee (homebuyer) once the appeal does not survive.
The tribunal observed that the pre-deposit safeguards the amount already determined in the allottee's favour. It also prevents the allottee from having to go “from pillar to post” to recover the amount if the promoter's appeal fails.
The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Shrikant M. Deshpande, allowed the allottee to withdraw the pre-deposit made by P.R. Builders & Developers after rejecting its authorised partner Sachin Prakash Dhavle's plea to condone a 674-day delay in challenging the order passed in non-compliance proceedings.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Punjab RERA
Punjab RERA Partly Allows Villa Buyer's Complaint, Says Unpaid Instalments Bar Possession
Case Title Vikas Gupta v. IREO Waterfront Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number Complaint GC No. 0570 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 148
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 30 September held that a homebuyer who failed to pay instalments for a villa despite repeated reminders could not claim an enforceable right to possession, but remained entitled to a refund of the amount paid with interest.
Member Binod Kumar Singh partly allowed Vikas Gupta's complaint against IREO Waterfront Private Limited and AIPL Housing & Urban Infrastructure Limited and directed the latter to refund Rs.40 lakh with 10.80% annual interest from the respective dates on which the payments were received until the date of actual refund. He observed:
“Upon holistic consideration of the complaint, reply, rejoinder, documents placed on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Bench finds that the complainant has failed its obligation to make the payment as per Builder Buyer agreement even after repeatedly reminder before the due date of possession from the respondent.”
Telangana RERA
Telangana RERA Says Additional Floors Cannot Dilute Agreed UDS, Directs PBSR To Compensate Buyers
Case Title Cherukuri Hema & Anr. v. M/s. PBSR Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number Complaint No. 254 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 149
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 5 October held that a general clause permitting additional construction cannot allow a developer to reduce the specific undivided share of land promised to homebuyers.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao directed PBSR Developers Private Limited to compensate homebuyers of its 'Smondo Gachibowli' project for reducing their agreed undivided share of land. It observed:
“A general reference to the terms of the agreement cannot be read as a licence to deprive the purchaser of a quantified ownership right that forms the very subject matter of the conveyance.”
Maharashtra RERA
Maharashtra RERA Imposes ₹10 Lakh Penalty On Developers For Failing To Allot Flat
Case Title vMadhu Alvani & Anr. v. Sai Enterprises & Anr.
Case Number CC006000000079000/APPL/NC/3
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 150
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on Sai Enterprises and Super Construction for failing to comply with an earlier order directing them to allot a flat to two homebuyers.
Adjudicating Officer R.K. Malabade found that the developers had also failed to pay interest on ₹17.49 lakh received from the homebuyers. The authority directed recovery of the interest from June 24, 2012, along with ₹20,000 in complaint costs.
“However, there is non compliance in the directions of the final order passed by the Hon'ble Authority, committed by the respondents,” the adjudicating officer observed.