LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: June 1 - June 6, 2026
Shivani PS
8 Jun 2026 11:24 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Prasanth B. & Anr. v. Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 87
Vardhman Developers v. Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Anr., 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 8
Harish Jasuja v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 35
Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors., 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 36
Lakshmi V. Reddy v. M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd., 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 92
Vijay Kumar Pasumarti v. SVS Square Spaces LLP, 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 93
Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Vijay Veer; Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Pankaj Choudhary & Anr.,2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 94
Dr. Kumar Rajiv & Anr. v. Adani M2K Projects LLP, 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 95
Sanjeev Kumar v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. & Ors., 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 96
HIGH COURTS
Kerala High Court
Case Title Prasanth B. & Anr. v. Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (and connected cases)
Case Number W.A. Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060, 1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 87
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a builder could not be permitted to calculate the mandatory pre-deposit for pursuing a RERA appeal on the basis of the Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR) instead of the State Bank of India's Benchmark Prime Lending Rate plus 2% prescribed under Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018.
The Court observed that such a course would "render Rule 18 a dead letter."
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar allowed a batch of appeals filed by homebuyers against Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The bench vacated an interim order of a Single Judge that had permitted the builder to calculate the pre-deposit on the basis of MCLR instead of the rate prescribed under Rule 18.
"We are of the view that the intent of the Legislature was deliberate and the same was to fix a deterrent rate that would compensate allottees/buyers meaningfully and discourage promoter/builder defaults. If the order is allowed to stand, every promoter/builder against whom an order is issued by the RERA would at the stage of filing of the appeal insist on refixation of the pre-deposit with External Benchmark Lending Rate (EBLR), which would lower their burden even further. This would render Rule 18 a dead letter and deprive the provision of certainty and enforceability. ," the Court observed.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title Vardhman Developers v. Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number RERA APPEAL No. 07 of 2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 8
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently held that the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for entertaining a promoter's appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, applies not only in cases involving penalties.
It also applies where a promoter challenges directions requiring payment of amounts to allottees, including interest and compensation.
A bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Vardhman Developers. The appeal challenged an order of the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directing the developer to deposit 50% of the amount payable to allottees in compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.
Explaining the scope of the provision, the court observed,
“The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act is in two parts. Earlier part of the provision deals with the cases of penalty, where the pre-condition for entertaining appeal is deposit of 30% of the penalty or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The second and the latter part deals with any other amounts including interest or compensation, imposed by the Tribunal and in such cases, the same is required to be deposited as a precondition for availing the remedy of appeal”
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Upholds RERA Order Treating Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank As Promoter In Kota Project
Case Title Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
Case Number Appeal No. 308/2024 (arising out of Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2023-6115)
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 36
On 19 May, the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) upheld a Rajasthan RERA order treating Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma held that the bank stepped into the developer's role in the “Shreenath Oasis” project at Kota after acquiring an interest in the project through a mortgage. It held:
“it is admitted fact that the respondent-developer and the respondent-landowners have assigned their rights in the project by way of mortgage and executed mortgage-deed in favour of the respondent-bank”
Case Title Harish Jasuja v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr
Case Number Appeal No. 66/2022 and connected appeals
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 35
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has cautioned against attempts to claim exemption from project registration by relying on separate ownership of adjoining land parcels measuring less than 500 square meters.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma made the observation while dismissing eight connected appeals filed by promoter Harish Jasuja concerning the “City Trade Center” project in Sri Ganganagar.
Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, registration is generally not required where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight.
The tribunal observed:
“If we exempt such type of projects from registration then, two or more than two persons or a group of persons will purchase the parcel of land by separate sale-deeds of less than 500 square meters adjacent to each other and, therefore, after taking approval of competent authority in the independent capacity, they may design, construct or even offer for sale along with all type of common amenities with mutual understanding and claim for exemption to frustrate the very purpose of enactment of the RERA Act, 2016. Therefore, we may safely conclude that the project was designed, constructed and marketed as one single project and required to be registered under Section 3 of the RERA Act, 2016.”
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Punjab RERA
Punjab RERA Orders ₹24.38 Lakh Refund To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession Of Sunny Enclave Plot
Case Title Sanjeev Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number Complaint No. C No. 0015 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(PB) 96
On 27 May, the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) reiterated that homebuyers cannot be compelled to remain in indefinitely delayed real estate projects and are entitled to seek refund with interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 where promoters fail to deliver possession within a reasonable time.
The Authority, comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh, directed Bajwa Developers Ltd. and others to refund Rs. 24,38,075 to Gurgaon resident Sanjeev Kumar along with interest at 10.80% per annum from the respective dates of payment until realisation. It held:
“Since the possession of plot has been delayed inordinately; therefore, as provisions of Section 18 the complainant is entitled to claim refund along with interest as per its choice in case of non-completion by agreed date.”
Telangana RERA
Case Title Vijay Kumar Pasumarti vs SVS Square Spaces LLP
Case Number Complaint No. 57 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 93
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority), on 5 May, directed SVS Square Spaces to carry out comprehensive waterproofing works and permanently rectify seepage and leakage issues in a homebuyer's flat, holding that the defects arose from defective workmanship in the terrace flooring and inadequate waterproofing.
Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana with Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao allowed the complaint and held the promoter responsible for rectification of the defects. The Bench held:
“that the water leakages stemming from the terrace into the below floor constitute a clear instance of defective workmanship of the terrace flooring and an inadequate waterproofing course”
Maharashtra RERA
Case Title Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Vijay Veer; Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Pankaj Choudhary & Anr.
Case Number Complaint No. CC006000000354480 and Complaint No. CC006000000480190
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 94
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that repeated and prolonged payment defaults by homebuyers are contrary to their contractual and statutory obligations.
It observed that such defaults adversely affect project execution, financial planning, and a promoter's obligations towards other stakeholders and financial institutions.
Member Ravindra Deshpande made the observation while allowing two complaints filed by Transcon Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. The Authority directed Santosh Vijay Veer and Pankaj Choudhary and Jyoti Choudhary to pay outstanding sale consideration of ₹37.57 lakh and ₹1.25 crore respectively, together with interest at SBI's highest MCLR plus 2%.
The authority observed:
"The provisions of Section 19(6) of the said Act cast a statutory obligation upon every allottee to make necessary payments in the manner and within the time stipulated under the Agreement for Sale. The repeated and prolonged defaults committed by the Respondents are therefore contrary not only to the contractual obligations undertaken by them but also to the statutory framework governing real estate transactions under the said Act."
"The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has consistently held that while the provisions of the said Act are intended to protect the interests of allottees, the same equally require adherence to financial discipline and reciprocal contractual obligations by the allottees. Persistent payment defaults by allottees adversely affect project execution, financial planning and obligations of the promoter towards other stakeholders and financial institutions. In the present case, there is no material placed on record to establish any delay attributable to the Complainant promoter as the contractual possession date itself is 30.04.2027 and the project is stated to be substantially completed.", it added.
Haryana RERA
Case Title Dr. Kumar Rajiv & Anr. Versus Adani M2K Projects LLP
Case Number Complaint No: 5388 of 2023
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 95
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has held that homebuyers in an Adani M2K project who chose to continue with the project after securing delayed possession compensation cannot seek separate compensation for the same delay.
Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held, “The parliament did not intend to provide compensation other than DPC in case allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project.”
The ruling came while dismissing a complaint filed by two homebuyers against Adani M2K Projects LLP, the developer of the Oyster Grande residential project in Gurugram.
Karnataka RERA
Karnataka RERA Orders Penalty Proceedings Against Maxworth Realty Over Unregistered Project
Case Title Lakshmi V. Reddy versus M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd.
Case Number Complaint No: 00915 of 2025
Citation 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 92
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has ordered initiation of penalty proceedings against Maxworth Realty India Ltd for failing to register its project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, while also directing the developer to hand over possession of a plot booked by a homebuyer more than a decade ago.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy held that the developer could not continue retaining the buyer's money without either completing the transaction or returning the amount.
"The respondent cannot be permitted to unjustly enrich itself by retaining the complainant's money indefinitely without either executing conveyance or refunding the amount," the Authority observed.