NOMINAL INDEX
Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Rohit Singh v. Shivaji Singh, 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 87
Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 197
Raffles Residency Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 194
Vikram Kapoor v. Man Realty Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 77
Geethanjali M. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ALN Buildtech, 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 78
Fortune Multitech Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajat Kumar & Rohtash Singh, 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 151
High Courts
Allahabad High Court
Case Title Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Rohit Singh v. Shivaji Singh
Case Number RERA APPEAL No. - 118 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 87
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a clause in a development authority's brochure permitting it to deduct 20% of the registration amount and return the balance without interest where an allottee withdraws after allotment is a one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable term of the contract.
It held that the Lucknow Development Authority was not entitled to the benefit of such a clause.
Clause 8.2 of the brochure of the Lucknow Development Authority provided that where the money is withdrawn after allotment of the property, 20% of the registration amount would be deducted and the remaining amount refunded without interest.
Justice Saurabh Lavania held:
“The Clause 8.2 is not in consonance with the basic principles of the law of Contract as to the view of this Court the same is ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable term of the Contract. Therefore, the Applicant - L.D.A. is not entitled to the benefit based upon Clause 8.2, as prayed.”
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Upholds Unishire Property Attachment, Says Final K-RERA Order Can't Be Reopened
Case Title M/s Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number Writ Petition No. 6366 of 2025 (KLR-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 197
The Karnataka High Court on 6 October held that a developer cannot challenge a consequential property attachment after its appeal against the underlying Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) order has been dismissed and the order has attained finality.
Justice E.S. Indiresh dismissed Unishire Promoters Private Limited's writ petition and upheld the attachment of its property in Bengaluru to recover unpaid dues owed to a homebuyer. The Bench observed:
“In that view of the matter, as the petitioners herein have not produced any material as to challenge the order passed by respondent No.4 and as the said order has attained finality the finality on 23.08.2025 as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, that the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the original order passed by respondent No.4, the petitioners cannot, at this stage, challenge the consequential order of attachment, as bad in law.”
Karnataka High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Occupancy Certificates For 33 Raffles Park Villas
Case Title Raffles Residency Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number Writ Petition No. 3640 of 2023 (LB-RES)
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 194
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the cancellation of occupancy certificates issued for 33 villas in Raffles Residency Private Limited's Raffles Park project in Bengaluru, finding that the project was incomplete and unfit for occupation when the certificates were issued.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recalled an earlier order that had restored the certificates, finding that the developer had suppressed material documentary evidence bearing on the project's completion.
The court observed that the documents were within the developer's own knowledge and custody and that the withheld material directly affected the factual basis on which relief had been granted.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Maharashtra REAT
Complaint Filed Before Possession Deadline Alone Can't Bar Relief To Homebuyer: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title Vikram Kapoor v. M/s. Man Realty Limited & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. AT006000000053435 of 2022
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 77
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT), on 9 October, held that a homebuyer's complaint cannot be rejected as premature merely because the contractual possession deadline had not expired when the complaint was filed, particularly when the developer subsequently failed to hand over possession.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Administrative Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara set aside the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority's (MahaRERA) order rejecting the homebuyer's complaint as premature and partly allowed his appeal. They observed:
“We are of the view that the simple fact that the complaint was instituted before the expiry of the contractual date of possession cannot be the sole determinant of the Appellant's entitlement to relief in the present Appeal.”
Karnataka REAT
Karnataka REAT Upholds Order Directing Homebuyer To Pay ₹2.45 Lakh For Bengaluru Flat
Case Title Geethanjali M. v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ALN Buildtech
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 114 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 78
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has upheld an order directing a homebuyer to pay ₹2.45 lakh in outstanding dues for a flat in ALN Buildtech's ALN Arambh project in Bengaluru..
Dismissing the homebuyer's appeal, a Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. held that compensation claims requiring a detailed inquiry must be pursued before the Adjudicating Officer, while grievances concerning common amenities must be raised through the Apartment Owners' Association or another competent legal forum.
The Tribunal observed:
“Thus, taking into consideration the fact that some of the relief sought by the Allottee require an enquiry by the Adjudicating Officer and some of the reliefs which are in the nature of common amenities are required to be sought through the Association of the Allottees, the Authority has rightly directed the Allottee to file necessary complaint through the Association or before such competent Legal Forum.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Punjab RERA
Case Title Fortune Multitech Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajat Kumar & Rohtash Singh
Case Number GC No. 0236/2021
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 151
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently ruled that apartment owners cannot refuse to pay maintenance charges merely because they did not sign a separate maintenance agreement.
The obligation arises from the buyer's agreement and Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Allowing a complaint filed by Fortune Multitech Private Limited, the authority directed two apartment owners to pay ₹2,85,472 towards outstanding maintenance charges and interest for the Victoria Heights residential project in Mohali, Punjab.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed, “The liability to pay maintenance charges flows from the Buyers Agreement itself signed between the parties. Further, Section 19(6) of the RERD Act, 2016 also requires an allottee to make necessary payments, including maintenance charges. Merely, because a separate maintenance agreement was not executed does not mean that the respondents can avoid payment of maintenance charges.”