LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: September 28 - October 3, 2026
Shivani PS
6 Oct 2026 10:12 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Sarafaraz Ahmad v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal, 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 82
Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors., 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 537
Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Virupakshappa Irappa Bagewadi & Anr., connected with Virupakshappa Irappa Bagewadi v. Karnataka RERA & Anr., 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 74
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Anil Kumar Tak & Connected Appeals, 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 73
Achanti Shilpa & Anr. v. M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP, 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 145
Renu Choudhary & Anr. v. M/s Sushma Buildtech Ltd. & Others, 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 146
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Sarafaraz Ahmad v. Shyam Sundar Agarwal
Case Number : RERA APPEAL No. - 37 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 82
No Limitation To Claim Delay Interest Where Allottee Continues With Project: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court on 23 September held that an allottee who continues with a real estate project can claim interest for every month of delay in possession, as the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prescribes no limitation for raising such a claim.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction to pay delay interest, holding that the expression “demand” in the proviso to Section 18(1) cannot defeat an allottee's statutory right to compensation. It observed:
“A plain reading of Section 18(1) shows that no limitation or prescribed time frame has been provided by the legislature for raising a claim for delay interest where the allottee continues with the project. The expression “demand” occurring in the provision cannot be interpreted to defeat the substantive statutory right conferred upon an allottee to receive compensation for delayed possession.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors.
Case Number : Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 8825 of 2025 with Interim Application No. 7869 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 537
The Bombay High Court has recently held that homebuyers who withdraw from a delayed housing project cannot be made to wait for a refund until the developer obtains an Occupation Certificate (OC).
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the right of such homebuyers to receive their money back with interest is “absolute and unqualified”.
“Thus, on plain reading of Section 18 of RERA, in my view, the right to seek return of amount with interest is absolute and unqualified. The right cannot be diluted by the Regulatory Authority or by the Appellate Authority or even by the High Court by giving any concession to the promoter to return the amount only after securing OC for the project,” the court held.
The ruling came in a second appeal filed by Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors against orders directing them to refund money paid by Nitin Madhukar Shewale and another homebuyer for the Waterways project in Nashik.
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Karnataka REAT
Case Title : M/s Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Virupakshappa Irappa Bagewadi & Anr., connected with Virupakshappa Irappa Bagewadi v. Karnataka RERA & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. (K-REAT) 30/2026 connected with Appeal No. (K-REAT) 36/2026
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (KA) 74
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an Occupancy Certificate (OC) is not a mere procedural formality and its date can be relevant in deciding when a project can be treated as lawfully completed.
“Therefore, the issuance of an occupancy certificate by the competent authority is not a mere procedural formality; rather, it is a statutory recognition that the building is permitted to be occupied in accordance with the applicable local laws and has the requisite civic infrastructure. Consequently, while determining the period of delay and the consequential liability of the promoter, the date and legal effect of the occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority assume significance. This version also leaves room to distinguish between lawful occupation pursuant to the OC,” the tribunal observed.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. made the observation while deciding a dispute over Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd.'s “Casa Grande Lorenza” project in Bengaluru.
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Stays RERA Order Granting Interim Relief Not Prayed For By Allottee
Case Title Rajasthan Housing Board v. Anil Kumar Tak & Connected Appeals
Case Number Appeal Nos. 320/2026, 329/2026, 330/2026, 331/2026 & 332/2026
Citation 2026 LLBiz REAT (RJ) 73
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has stayed an ex-parte interim order that prevented the Rajasthan Housing Board from proposing any increase over the ₹99.86 lakh tentative cost of flats in its AIS Residency Phase-II project in Jaipur. The order had also restrained the Board from demanding additional payments from the allottees.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma observed that “the ex-parte interim-order was passed despite the fact that categorically, no interim relief was prayed for by the complaints.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Telangana RERA
Case Title : Achanti Shilpa & Anr. v. M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP
Case Number : Complaint No. 660 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 145
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Telangana RERA) on 25 August directed Vasavi Realtors LLP to pay 10.70% annual interest to homebuyers Shilpa and Sridhar for delayed possession in its Vasavi Lake City West project, noting that more than 50 complaints had reached it against the developer concerning the same project.
A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao expressed “grave concern” over a “systemic pattern of default” and directed interest payment from 1 March 2024 until lawful possession and warned that any further default or non-compliance would invite penalty proceedings under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority observed:
“This Authority takes note, with grave concern, that over fifty complaints have already been received against this same Respondent arising from the same project. Such a systemic pattern of default, repeated false assurances, and disregard for the statutory framework strikes at the very foundation of homebuyer confidence. The RE(R&D) Act was enacted as a beneficial legislation to protect innocent homebuyers, and this Respondent's conduct is in gross derogation of that mandate. Any further default, non-compliance, or grievance brought by allottees will invite proceedings under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.”
Punjab RERA
Homebuyers Continuing Project Can Claim Delay Interest, Not Compensation: Punjab RERA
Case Title : Renu Choudhary & Anr. v. M/s Sushma Buildtech Ltd. & Others
Case Number : Complaint No. AdCNo.0083 of 2022
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 146
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a homebuyer who chooses to continue with a delayed housing project cannot separately seek compensation for the delay under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The remedy in such a case is interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over, Adjudicating Officer R.S. Rai ruled while dismissing a complaint filed by Renu Choudhary and Amit Choudhary against Sushma Buildtech Limited.
The homebuyers had sought ₹5 lakh for mental agony and harassment arising from the delay. They also sought relief for loss of capital gains exemption, rental costs and interest expenses.
Rai observed, “Wording of this provision of the Act, makes it crystal clear that allottee/complainant can only seek compensation, if he/she withdraws from the project. Otherwise, if he/she does not intend to withdraw from the project, he/she shall be paid only interest for every month of delay, till handing over the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and this remedy has already been availed by the complainants of the case in hand.”