NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Neumec Developers and Builders v. Chirag Jain and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 482
Hubtown Ltd. v. Smitesh Shivaji Patil, 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 483
Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
M/s Prestige South City Holdings v. Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association & Anr.; Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association v. Prestige South City Holdings & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 60
Godrej Skyline Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Salve, 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 61
Goyal Hariyana Realty v. Mrs. Vinaya & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 59
Sh. Chinu Goyal v. M/s Barnala Builders, 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 133
HIGH COURTS
Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Neumec Developers And Builders v. Chirag Jain and Anr.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 315 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 332 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 482
The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that a promoter cannot have a delay condonation application considered without first making the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), holding that a delay application forms part of the appeal and cannot be treated independently.
Justice N. J. Jamadar delivered the judgment while dismissing two second appeals filed by Neumec Developers and Builders against homebuyers, upholding the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction requiring the promoter to make the pre-deposit before its delay condonation application could be considered. The Bench observed:
“The key words in the proviso are 'entertain' and 'before the said appeal is heard'. The word 'entertain' does not imply the filing or institution of the proceeding. The word 'entertain' has reference to the judicial/quasi-judicial act of application of mind by the Court/Tribunal, in contradistinction to the filing or institution, which is a ministerial act.”
RERA Tribunal Has Inherent Power To Restore Proceedings Dismissed For Default: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Hubtown Ltd. v. Smitesh Shivaji Patil
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 221 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 3411 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 483
The Bombay High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has inherent power to restore proceedings dismissed for default, even though such power is not expressly provided under Section 53(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), as the Tribunal is required to be guided by principles of natural justice.
Justice N. J. Jamadar, on 22 July, dismissed developer Hubtown Ltd.'s second appeal and upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's order restoring proceedings that had been dismissed after homebuyer Smitesh Shivaji Patil failed to appear. The Bench observed:
“In a sense, the power to restore a proceeding dismissed in default is a necessary corollary of the power to dismiss the proceeding, in the first place. The power of restoration is implicit in the power of dismissal unless specifically proscribed. When the Appellate Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice in its determination, it cannot be urged with authority that, the Appellate Tribunal cannot restore a proceeding dismissed in default, where it finds that, the cause of justice and equity would be better subserved by restoring the proceeding dismissed in default.”
Delhi High Court
Case Title : Omaxe Ltd. v. Asha Saini
Case Number : FAO (COMM) 53/2022 & FAO (COMM) 91/2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 917
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a homebuyer can claim compensation for delayed possession through arbitration even though remedies are also available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“Merely because the Respondent elected to invoke the arbitration agreement instead of pursuing remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or RERA, it cannot be deprived of compensation otherwise legally payable for delayed possession The substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Act of 1872, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and RERA statutes provides additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcement of that right.,” the court observed.
It held that the substantive right to claim such compensation is founded in Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while RERA and the Consumer Protection Act provide additional forums and statutory mechanisms for enforcing that right.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed two appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd. and upheld arbitral awards in favour of homebuyer Asha Saini. The arbitrator had awarded compensation at 15% per annum for the delay in handing over possession of two flats.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Tamil Nadu REAT
Tamil Nadu REAT Directs Prestige To Hand Over Service Plots To Villa Owners' Association
Case Title : M/s Prestige South City Holdings v. Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association & Anr.; Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association v. Prestige South City Holdings & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal Nos. 33 & 37 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 60
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) on 2 September partly allowed an appeal filed by the Prestige Silver Springs Villa Owners Association and directed Prestige South City Holdings and Ratnavara Developers LLP to hand over two service plots in the villa project within two months.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy and Judicial Member K. Babu noted that a developer and landowner cannot retain service plots earmarked for common use in a sanctioned layout on the basis of an arbitral award to which the villa owners' association was not a party. The Tribunal observed:
“The Villa owners purchased the Villas as per the CMDA sanctioned plan. The sanctioned plan clearly mandates that all common areas shall not be utilized otherwise than as indicated in the sanctioned plan. Further, in the Arbitration proceedings, the appellant Association was not a party and the findings of the Arbitration proceedings in which the appellant Association was not a party shall not bind them. The land owner or the builder cannot be allowed to violate the sanctioned plan. In such circumstances, service Plot Nos.4 & 5 (II), which form part of the approved layout in the sanctioned plan, cannot be utilized or retained by the 1st respondent.”
Maharashtra REAT
Forfeiture Clause Cannot Be Mechanically Enforced on Cancellation Of Flat Booking: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Godrej Skyline Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Joy Salve
Case Number : Appeal No. AT005000000134212 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 61
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a developer cannot mechanically enforce a forfeiture clause to retain the entire amount paid by a homebuyer on cancellation of his booking.
This is particularly so when no Agreement for Sale was executed or registered between the parties.
Rejecting the developer's claim that its contractual terms allowed it to keep the payment, the tribunal observed,
“We are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant/Promoter that the mere existence of such a clause confers a right upon it to forfeit the entire amount paid by the Respondent/Allottee as part consideration amount. A forfeiture clause cannot be enforced mechanically, particularly where the transaction has not finally culminated in execution or registration of an Agreement for Sale. Further, the material placed on record does not demonstrate the financial loss corresponding to the entire amount sought to be forfeited.”
Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Goyal Hariyana Realty v. Mrs. Vinaya & Ors.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 42/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 59
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a settlement deed covering disputes existing when it was signed cannot be treated as an unconditional waiver of claims over construction defects discovered after the homebuyers took possession.
The tribunal observed that the settlement was confined to claims “subsisting” between the parties when the deed was executed. Its broad language could not be construed as giving up claims arising from defects discovered later and which were not within the parties' contemplation at the time of settlement.
A bench of Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. delivered the judgment on September 1, 2026.
The tribunal dismissed an appeal by Goyal Hariyana Realty and upheld an order directing the builder and the landowner to jointly pay ₹6 lakh as compensation to two homebuyers for alleged construction defects, besides ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
The tribunal observed,
“Consequently, the settlement of the then subsisting disputes cannot, merely by virtue of the general language employed therein, be construed as an unconditional relinquishment of claims arising from defects which were discovered subsequently and which were not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering into the settlement.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Punjab RERA
Case Title : Sh. Chinu Goyal v. M/s Barnala Builders
Case Number : GC No. 0126/2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 133
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ruled that although a developer had made payments described as assured returns to a homebuyer, those payments alone could not establish that it was contractually bound to pay a 12% annual return until possession.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed that the buyer had to establish the contractual basis for the claimed return, including its rate, period, and conditions. Earlier payments could not, by themselves, add such terms to or enlarge the Agreement for Sale.
The Authority observed, “However, the fact that payments were made does not, by itself, establish the precise contractual rate of 12%, the period for which such return was payable, the conditions attached thereto, or that the obligation continued until the date of possession. A payment made pursuant to a commercial understanding is not, by itself, sufficient to rewrite or enlarge the terms of the Agreement for Sale"