Settlement Talks, Vague Legal Advice Can't Justify 299-Day Delay In Filing Appeal: Maharashtra REAT

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has refused to condone a 299-day delay in an appeal filed by a homebuyer against Acme Industries Private Limited.

The tribunal held that claims of settlement talks, conflicting legal advice, and a family bereavement were not enough to justify such a prolonged delay.

A coram of Chairperson S.S. Shinde and Member Dr. Rajagopal Devara observed: "The Applicant has neither disclosed the particulars of the alleged advice nor placed any material on record to demonstrate as to how such advice prevented him from availing the statutory remedy available within the prescribed period. A vague plea regarding legal advice, unsupported by any material record, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for substantial delay in filing the appeal."

The dispute relates to units booked by the homebuyer in a project developed by Acme Industries. He had approached Maharashtra RERA alleging that the developer failed to execute and register agreements for sale for certain units.

On February 1, 2024, RERA dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. The homebuyer then sought to challenge that order before the appellate tribunal.

The appeal should have been filed by April 1, 2024. Instead, it was lodged on February 5, 2025, leading to a delay of 299 days.

In seeking condonation, the homebuyer said efforts were being made to settle the dispute through an intermediary. He claimed those discussions led him to hold off on litigation.

He also argued that advice received from his earlier advocate created uncertainty about the appropriate legal remedy.

Another ground cited was the illness and subsequent death of his younger brother in August 2024. According to the homebuyer, the loss caused emotional distress and affected family business affairs.

Acme Industries opposed the application. The company argued that none of the explanations was backed by evidence. 

The tribunal found no material to support the claim that settlement discussions were underway. A bare assertion of negotiations, it said, could not explain a delay of nearly ten months.

The plea of contradictory legal advice was also rejected. The tribunal noted that the homebuyer had not disclosed what advice was given or how it prevented him from filing the appeal within time.

As for the family bereavement, the tribunal observed that the limitation period had expired on April 1, 2024, while the brother passed away in August that year. The event therefore could not account for the delay.

Finding the explanations unsupported by evidence and lacking due diligence, the tribunal rejected the application. With the delay not condoned, the appeal did not survive and was disposed of.

For Applicant (Mukesh Mangilal Jain): Advocate Sadhna Singh.

For Non-applicants (Acme Industries Private Limited, Dilip Pukhraj Doshi and Ranjan Dilip Doshi): Advocate Anirudh Bhalwal.