LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: June 15 - June 21, 2026
Shivani PS
22 Jun 2026 11:46 AM IST
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Says Homebuyers Retain Right To Delay Interest Despite Staying With Project
Case Title : CCI Projects Private Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal No. 479 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 349
The Bombay High Court has held that homebuyers who continue with a housing project despite delayed possession do not lose their statutory right to claim interest for the delay.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an appeal filed by CCI Projects Private Limited and upheld a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order directing the developer to pay interest to purchasers of an apartment in the Wintergreen building of its Rivali Park project in Mumbai.
“The unqualified absolute right of the allottee stands statutorily recognised and the continuation with the project, which if expressed in the language of Section 55 of Contract Act, constitutes acceptance of delayed performance, does not impact the unfettered statutory right conferred by Section 18 of RERA Act to claim interest,” the court observed.
Case Title : Upvan Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Upvan Developers & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11551 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 331
Conveyance of land in favour of a co-operative housing society cannot be postponed until completion of an entire layout development, the Bombay High Court has reiterated while setting aside an order that rejected a society's deemed conveyance application as premature.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “This Court has already held that conveyance cannot be postponed till completion of entire layout development and that land can be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society even before completion of the layout development.”
The ruling came in a petition filed by Upvan Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which challenged an order dated May 20, 2025 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting its application for deemed conveyance.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Settlement Talks, Vague Legal Advice Can't Justify 299-Day Delay In Filing Appeal: Maharashtra REAT
Case Title : Mukesh Mangilal Jain v. Acme Industries Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Application No. 107 of 2025 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT12500066
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 39
he 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."
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Maharashtra RERA
MahaRERA Holds Common Facility Disputes Must Be Pursued Through Society, Rejects Individual Claims
Case Title: Vinod Parasharam Atpadkar & Ors. v. Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complaint No. CC12503139
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 106
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 11 June, held that individual allottees cannot pursue disputes relating to common amenities, maintenance charges and collective facilities once a co-operative housing society is formed, and must raise such issues through the society under Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed a complaint filed by 19 allottees of Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.'s “Marathon Nexzone Zenith-2” project, holding that the dispute became not maintainable once the society came into existence and possession had already been handed over. He observed:
“Once the society is formed, issues relating to common amenities, common facilities, common charges and the collective rights of allottees are required to be raised through the society as the said society is entitled to seek possession of such common areas as per the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.”
Case Title : Jithin Philip Mathews & Anr. v. Tycoons Avanti Projects LLP
Case Number: CC006000000591406
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 107
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 15 June 2026 held that the completion or extension dates reflected on the RERA web portal cannot override the specific possession date agreed between a developer and a homebuyer under a registered agreement for sale.
A Bench comprising Member Ravindra Deshpande disposed of two complaints relating to the “Tycoons Square Avenue I Tower C” project. It directed Tycoons Avanti Projects LLP to refund Rs 58.51 lakh with interest to homebuyers Jithin Philip Mathews and Mathews Mathai for failing to hand over possession on time.
In the connected complaint, the Authority also directed the developer to hand over possession of a commercial unit to purchaser Gobind Rajani along with delayed-possession interest. The Bench observed:
“Considering the said observation, this Authority is of the view that the date of completion of the said project mentioned on the MahaRERA website is distinct from the date of possession mentioned in the said Agreements signed with the Complainant and as per the terms of the said Agreement, possession of the said flat was to be handed over to the Complainant on 30.03.2023, which the Respondent has failed to comply, which fact entitles the Complainants to the costs of the present complaint. In light of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the Complainants are entitled to withdraw from the said project and seek refund of the amount paid towards the sale consideration only.”
Karnataka RERA
Sohan Realty Cannot Deny Homebuyer Rights Over Payments to Previous Developer: Karnataka RERA
Case Title : Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru v. Manyam Estates Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 00202/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 108
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has directed Sohan Realty, which took over the Bengaluru residential project now known as Sohan Skypark, to recognise homebuyer Vijaya Shanthi Kanuru as the lawful allottee of Flat No. B-302.
It also directed the developer to grant her access and possession of the apartment.
The order was passed by Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy.
“Section 19(1) of the Act confers upon every allottee the right to possession and peaceful enjoyment of the apartment, while Section 11(4)(a) mandates the promoter to honour obligations arising from agreements and representations. Once M/s Sohan Realty has stepped in as promoter under Section 8, it cannot refuse access nor shift responsibility onto the outgoing promoter,” the Authority observed.
Promoter Holds Homebuyers' Funds In Trust, Cannot Retain Common Assets After Handover: K-RERA
Case Title: Yoganandan Jagannathan v. Smart Value Homes (Peenya Project) Private Limited & Anr.
Case Number: Complaint No. 00002/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(KA) 109
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) on 3 June held that a promoter holds money collected from homebuyers in trust and cannot use it for construction activities or personal purposes and that a promoter's obligation to transfer common areas, project assets and funds to the association of allottees continues even after handing over possession.
Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member G.R. Reddy directed Smart Value Homes Private Limited and Tata Value Homes Limited to restore DG-set backup power supply to Jagannathan's apartment, complete the promised amenities, and transfer key project assets, funds and utility infrastructure of the "New Haven Bengaluru Phase 1" project to the authorised association of allottees. The Authority observed:
“The collected funds are held by the promoter in trust. The Promoter cannot utilize this money for construction or personal use. The obligation to transfer common areas and sinking funds is a continuance cause of action.”