LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: May 3 - May 9, 2026

Nominal Index

Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasa Siva Naga Ganesh Kumar, 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 29

Narendra Ramchand Ochani & Anr. v. Veena Realcon Private Ltd., 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 30

N R Bhadrachalam v. Bangalore Development Authority, 2026 LLBiz RERA (KA) 76

Prasenjith Kambde & Ors. v. M/s Beccun Infrastructure Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 77

Vipin Kumar Singhal & Anr. v. Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA (HP) 78

Real Estate Appellate Tribunals

Maharashtra REAT

Developers Need Not Refund GST, TDS, Stamp Duty While Refunding Flat Consideration: Maharashtra REAT

Case Title : Narendra Ramchand Ochani & Anr. v. Veena Realcon Private Ltd.

Case Number : Appeal No. AT006000000063823 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 30

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that a developer cannot ordinarily be directed to refund GST, MVAT, TDS, stamp duty and registration charges paid by homebuyers to Government authorities.

The ruling came while the Tribunal was ordering refund in a delayed housing project dispute.

“We are of the view that the said taxes and duties were paid to the Government. The said amounts are not towards the consideration amount for the subject flat,” the tribunal said.

"With regard to TDS, the said amount is deposited by the allottee directly with the Government and the promoter receives the credit of their advance tax. However, promoter is not liable to refund the said amount because the TDS was submitted to the Income Tax Department, the promoter is not responsible for the refunding it to the allottee. An appropriate recourse is through the tax authority and the allottee can apply for it to the Income Tax Depaftment.” it added.

Tamil Nadu REAT

Tamil Nadu REAT Upholds Appointment Of Engineer To Probe 'Malles Akankssha' Construction Irregularities

Case Title : M/s. Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasa Siva Naga Ganesh Kumar

Case Number: Appeal No.25 of 2026 and M.A. No.72 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TN) 29

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order appointing an independent engineer to inspect alleged defects and irregularities in a villa project developed by Malles Constructions Pvt. Ltd., saying the exercise would help ascertain the alleged irregularities and defects and would not prejudice the developer.

"Further, appointing an independent Engineer will not cause prejudice to the appellant/promoter in anyway. In fact, it will be helpful, not only to the respondent/complainant, but also to the appellant/promoter to find out the irregularities, if any and to rectify the defects found by the independent Engineer.” the Tribunal said.

Dismissing the developer's appeal, Chairperson Justice M. Duraiswamy, Judicial Member K. Babu and Administrative Member Selvi Apoorva held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) had rightly directed inspection of Villa No.55B in the “Malles Akankssha” project.

Real Estate Regulatory Authorities

Karnataka RERA

Karnataka RERA Orders BDA To Refund ₹11.46 Lakh Collected Despite Full Payment Before Cut-Off Date

Case Title : N R Bhadrachalam v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case Number : Complaint No. 00619/2025

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 76

The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund Rs.11.46 lakh collected from a homebuyer, holding that the amount could not have been demanded once the entire sale consideration had already been paid before the government's cut-off date.

“When the complainant had deposited an entire sale consideration on 28.10.2021 itself much prior to cut-off date 30.11.2021, the respondent could not have demanded/insisted the complainant to pay the said amount of Rs.11,46,267/- (Eleven Lakh Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only). Hence, the complainant is entitled to get refund of said amount along with interest.”

Telangana RERA

Telangana RERA Says Buyers Who Paid For Beccun Flats Are Allottees Even Without Sale Agreement

Case Title: Prasenjith Kambde & Ors. v. M/s Beccun Infrastructure Limited

Case Number: Complaint Nos. 261–272/2025/TG RERA

Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 77

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that buyers in the delayed “Beccun Life Style” project in Kompally, Hyderabad cannot be denied the status of allottees merely because formal agreements for sale were not executed, where they had paid substantial amounts and were allotted flats.

Rejecting objections raised by Beccun Infrastructure Limited, the Authority held that such buyers are entitled to be treated as allottees and can maintain complaints before it.

Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana and Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu said:

"The Respondent, however, has sought to contend that in the absence of duly executed Agreements of Sale signed by both parties, the Complainants cannot be treated as allottees. This contention cannot be accepted. The issuance of receipts, acknowledgment of payments, and allotment of specific units clearly establish the existence of a transaction and the intention to transfer such units in favour of the Complainants.", it said.

Himachal Pradesh RERA

Homebuyers Cannot Occupy Flat, Derive Benefit And Refuse Maintenance Charges: HP RERA

Case Title: Vipin Kumar Singhal & Anr. v. Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Complaint No. HPRERA2025016/C

Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HP) 78

Holding that homebuyers who continue to occupy a flat and derive benefits from it cannot completely deny liability towards maintenance charges, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that allottees in the “Himachal One” project at Baddi must pay reasonable maintenance charges.

The Coram of Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta observed:

“Thus, once the allottee is in possession and is availing services- at least basic in nature- the liability to pay the maintenance cannot be completely denied. In such circumstances, this Authority is of the view that the Complainants cannot take contradictory stands - on one hand enjoying possession of the property and earning benefit from it, and on the other hand denying their liability to pay maintenance charges. A party cannot accept the benefit of a situation and at the same time refuse to fulfill the obligations arising from it.”