NOMINAL INDEX
Kiyana Estate LLP v. Tina Dharamshey and Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 456
Bhupinder Singla v. State of Punjab, 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 42
Sandeep Kumar & Anr. v. Amacon Developers & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 55
Dr. Seema Jain & Anr. v. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 54
Sobha Ltd. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. c/w Abhishek Senapati & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 53
Authorised Representative of RERA v. M/s Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 128
HIGH COURTS
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kiyana Estate LLP v. Tina Dharamshey and Anr.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 117 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 2765 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 456
The Bombay High Court has held that a homebuyer's right to receive interest for delayed possession under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) is an independent and indefeasible statutory right.
The court held that this right cannot be defeated by relying on the principle under the Indian Contract Act that may restrict a claim for compensation where delayed performance is accepted without reserving such a claim.
A Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar delivered the ruling while dismissing a second appeal filed by Kiyana Estate LLP against flat buyers Tina Dharamshey and another allottee.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail In ₹5.44 Crore Roselyn Square Case, Says Allegations Go Beyond Delay
Case Title : Bhupinder Singla v. State of Punjab
Case Number : CRM-M-33438-2026 (O&M)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 42
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16 July held that allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy in connection with a real estate project go beyond a simple dispute over delayed possession or non-payment of assured returns.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed the regular bail plea of Bhupinder Singla, Director of Robus Landcorp Pvt. Ltd., who was accused in the “Roselyn Square” commercial project case, noting that the investigating agency had collected prima facie material, including electronic chat communications allegedly acknowledging cash payments, whose evidentiary value would be examined during trial. He held:
“This is not a simpliciter case of delayed delivery of possession or non-payment of assured returns by a developer, for which the complainant could have availed the statutory remedy under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Rather, the allegations prima facie disclose commission of serious offences involving fabrication and alteration of documents, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Telangana REAT
Telangana REAT Upholds Order To Refund ₹36.58 Lakh To Homebuyers For Same Plot Sold To Third Party
Case Title : Sandeep Kumar & Anr. v. M/s Amacon Developers & Ors.
Case Number : T.A. No. 99 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 55
The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order directing Amacon Developers to refund ₹36.58 lakh with 10.75% annual interest to two homebuyers after it sold the same plot to a third party despite an earlier agreement with them.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the buyers' appeal against the October 16, 2025 order of the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Authority had directed Amacon to refund the amount with interest from April 9, 2021.
The tribunal held that Amacon could not claim to have acted merely as an agent. It had entered into the agreement as vendor while claiming ownership of the plot, making its conduct that of a promoter under Section 2(zk) of RERA.
“From a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is established that the conduct of respondent No.1 cannot be considered that of a mere agent. On the contrary, his actions are indicative of those of a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the Act.”, the tribunal noted.
Haryana REAT
No Formal Builder-Buyer Agreement Needed To Establish Promoter-Allottee Relationship: Haryana REAT
Case Title : Dr. Seema Jain & Anr. v. M/s Omaxe Ltd. & Anr. (and connected appeal)
Case Number : Appeal No. 512 of 2022 and Appeal No. 574 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 54
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that a promoter-allottee relationship can exist even without a formal builder-buyer agreement or a specific unit number.
According to the tribunal, acceptance and retention of payment, along with records linking the transaction to a defined plot size and consideration, can be enough to establish such a relationship.
The tribunal dismissed cross-appeals filed by Omaxe Ltd., Robust Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the two homebuyers. It upheld the direction to allot the buyers a similar unit in Phase III or IV of “Omaxe City Centre, Faridabad” at the original allotment price, along with delay-possession charges.
“Even though no formal agreement or specific unit number was assigned, the conduct of the promoters in retaining the amount and reflecting the transaction against a defined plot size and consideration establishes a valid promoter-allottee relationship,” the tribunal observed.
The order was passed by Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Judicial Member Dr. Virender Parshad on August 7, 2026.
Karnataka REAT
Emails Can Constitute Valid Written Consent For Project Alterations Under RERA: Karnataka REAT
Case Title : Sobha Ltd. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. c/w Abhishek Senapati & Anr. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 84/2025 c/w Appeal No. (K-REAT) 103/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 53
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (K-REAT) has recently held that authenticated email communications can constitute valid written consent for changes to a real estate project.
The consent must be from at least two-thirds of the allottees, as required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
A coram comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. held that the RERA Act and Rules do not prescribe a particular mode, such as a physical signature, for recording such consent.
The tribunal ruled, “Section 14(2)(ii) of the Act mandates only the previous consent in writing of not less than two-thirds of the Allottees and does not prescribe any particular mode for recording such consent. By virtue of sections 4 & 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, electronic records and electronic communications receive statutory recognition.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Bihar RERA
Using Fake Registration Number To Market Unregistered Project Is 'Serious Fraud': Bihar RERA
Case Title : Authorised Representative of RERA v. M/s Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RERA/SM/582/2023
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (BR) 128
The Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA) on 5 August held that using a fabricated RERA registration number to advertise, develop and sell plots in an unregistered project constitutes a grave and wilful violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act), and imposed a Rs. 90 lakh penalty on Matrichhaya Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Chairman Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order, holding that the promoter deliberately used a fake registration number to create the false impression that its project was duly registered and to deceive prospective buyers. He held:
“The Authority observes that the respondent has deliberately mentioned a fabricated RERA Registration Number without obtaining registration of the project under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such an act is a grave and wilful violation of the Act and amounts to a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive prospective allottees by creating a false impression that the project is duly registered with the Authority. The conduct of the respondent clearly reflects mala fide intent, demonstrates a conscious disregard for the statutory provisions, and constitutes a serious fraud upon innocent homebuyers as well as the Authority. Such misconduct cannot be condoned.”