NOMINAL INDEX
DNM Trustee Services Private Limited v. Victoria Enterprises Limited & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 603
Amit Garg v. SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited & Another, 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 81
Nidhi Agarwal v. Casagrand Lotus Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 154
Urmila Arya v. Phenomenal Construction Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 155
Mrs. Bindu Bhatia & Anr. v. M/s Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 156
Bombay High Court
Rejection of Building Plans Not Force Majeure For Delayed Possession Interest: Bombay High Court
Case Title DNM Trustee Services Private Limited v. Victoria Enterprises Limited & Ors.
Case Number Interim Application (L) No. 2956 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 39 of 2015
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 603
The Bombay High Court on 23 October held that rejection of building plans by a planning authority does not constitute a force majeure event absolving a real estate promoter of liability to pay interest for delayed possession. Further, that interest for delayed possession can be awarded through summary judgment without a full trial or oral evidence, unlike compensation, which may require evidentiary adjudication.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne partly allowed an application filed by DNM Trustee Services Private Limited against Victoria Enterprises Limited, directing the developer to pay simple interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 5.51 crore for a delay of nearly 12 years in handing over two commercial units in Mumbai. The Bench observed:
“In any case, it is the duty of the promoter to get the plans sanctioned and to construct the building accordingly. If the promoter submits faulty plans and invites rejection, the allottee cannot be made to suffer. Thus, rejection of plan by the Planning Authority does not constitute a force majeure event.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Karnataka REAT
Revised Plan Attached To Sale Deed Not Informed Consent For Commercial Development: Karnataka REAT
Case Title Amit Garg v. SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited & Another
Case Number Appeal No. (K-REAT) 64 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 81
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Karnataka REAT) has ruled that merely attaching a revised sanctioned plan to a sale deed does not amount to informed consent from homebuyers for commercial development within a residential project.
“Mere enclosing of copy of the Revised Plan to the Sale Deed cannot be taken as informed consent. Therefore, at the least the Promoter ought to have taken prior written consent of at least 2/3rd of the Allottees before venturing into commercial development in 'A' Schedule,” the tribunal held.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. partly allowed homebuyer Amit Garg's appeal against SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited. It directed the developer to obtain written consent from at least two-thirds of the homebuyers within 60 days before proceeding under the revised sanctioned plan.
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Karnataka RERA
Homebuyer Denied Flat And Rise In Property Value Can Claim Higher Compensation: Karnataka RERA
Case Title Nidhi Agarwal v. Casagrand Lotus Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 00877/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 154
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on 7 October held that compensation to a homebuyer may be higher when cancellation of an allotment deprives the buyer of both possession of the apartment and appreciation in its market value.
Adjudicating Officer Maheshwari S. Hiremath directed Bengaluru-based developer Casagrand Lotus Private Limited to pay Rs. 5 lakh to homebuyer Agarwal for mental agony, financial loss and loss of opportunity. The officer found that the developer had unilaterally cancelled her allotment and allotted the apartment to a third party despite receiving substantial consideration. She observed:
“Where possession is eventually delivered, compensation may ordinarily be lower since the allottee receives benefit of appreciation. However, where refund alone is directed, compensation may be higher as the allottee is deprived of both, possession and escalation in value.”
Punjab RERA
Punjab RERA Advises Homebuyers To Check Statutory Clearances Before Taking Possession
Case Title Urmila Arya v. Phenomenal Construction Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number GC No. 0358 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 155
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA) has advised homebuyers to take possession of plots or units after builders obtain all necessary clearances from the competent authority, including Occupation or Completion Certificates.
Member Binod Kumar Singh made the observation while dismissing a homebuyer's claim for delayed-possession interest against Phenomenal Construction Private Limited and Suraksha Enclave Ipan Real Estate Private Limited. The Authority found no delay in handing over possession, relying on a conveyance deed that recorded physical possession had been delivered before the contractual deadline.
The authority observed: “It is always advice able that possession of plot/unit should be taken when the builder has all clearance from competent authority including occupation certificate/completion certificate.”
Haryana RERA
When Is An Offer Of Flat Possession Valid? Haryana RERA Lays Down Three Conditions
Case Title Mrs. Bindu Bhatia & Anr. v. M/s Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited
Case Number Complaint No. 3682 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 156
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Haryana RERA), Gurugram, has held that obtaining an Occupation Certificate does not make an offer of possession valid if the allotted unit is not ready for occupation.
The authority laid down three conditions for a valid offer: the developer must obtain an Occupation Certificate, the unit must be habitable, and the offer must not be accompanied by unreasonable additional demands.
Member Phool Singh Saini of Haryana RERA made the observation while directing Godrej Real View Developers Private Limited to pay delayed possession interest at 10.80% per annum to homebuyers Bindu Bhatia and Priya Chopra.
The authority found that the penthouse in the developer's Godrej Meridien-II project was not ready for possession despite the Occupation Certificate having been obtained.
“The Authority after detailed consideration of the matter has arrived at the conclusion that a valid offer of possession must have following components:
i. Possession must be offered after obtaining occupation certificate.
ii. The subject unit should be in habitable condition.
iii. Possession should not be accompanied by unreasonable additional demands.”