LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: 9th March - 14th March, 2026
Shivani PS
15 March 2026 3:15 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Kabra and Associates & Ors v Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors, 2026 LLBiz SC 109
M/s Sobha Limited v The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors, 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 30
M/s Omaxe Heritage Pvt Ltd v Real Estate Regulatory Authority New Delhi, 2026 LLBiz REAT (DL) 14
Ravi Kumar Anchoori v M/s Candeur Developers & Builders, 2026 LLBiz RERA (TS) 50
Tushar Dnyandeo Jagdale v Piramal Estate Private Limited, 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 44
Elkan Saphania Moses v Piramal Estates Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 51
Rajkumar Through Legal Heirs Yogesh Agrawal & Ors v Sahara Prime City Ltd & Anr, 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 46
Rudal Yadav v Mahira Buildtech Private Limited & Ors, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 48
Raj Kumar Chawla & Anr v Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz RERA (HR) 43
Shakuntala Mesquita v K.K. Construction & Ors, 2026 LLBiz RERA (GA) 47
Bharat Singh Bisht & Anr v M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt Ltd, 2026 LLBiz RERA (CH) 42
Supreme Court
Case Title : Kabra and Associates & Ors v Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 6936 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 109
The Supreme Court has recently held that where complainants had elected to pursue the remedy available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and withdrew their complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Authority, they could not thereafter opt for the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act for the same cause of action.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had held a consumer complaint filed by the homebuyers to be maintainable.
The Court observed, "When it was open to the complainants to elect/opt for one or the other remedy that was available to them at that time and they made that choice by approaching the Authority under the provisions of the Act of 2016 in the first instance and then decided to withdraw their complaint, reserving liberty to once again file a fresh complaint before the Authority, they could not have retracted therefrom.”
High Court
Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Sobha Limited v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 5934 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 30
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not repugnant to the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, observing that the two statutes govern different stages in the life of a real estate project.
The finding came in a petition filed by Sobha Limited concerning the Sobha HRC Pristine residential development in Bengaluru.
Justice M.G. Uma allowed the plea and set aside the registration of a cooperative society that had been formed by a group of purchasers in the project.
The court observed,
“Under such circumstances, it is to be held that there is no repugnancy between the provisions of RERA and KAOA. Moreover, the application of the provisions of RERA will be to projects which are under development till handing over of possession of the apartment to the owners and the undivided share of the project in favour of the association of owners formed under the provisions of KAOA, whereas, the provisions of KAOA will be applicable once such handing over is complete and the association is formed in accordance with law. In other words, the provisions under RERA are applicable to the pre-ownership stage, whereas the provisions under KAOA are applicable to the post-ownership.”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
REAT For NCT Of Delhi And UT Of Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Omaxe Heritage Pvt. Ltd. v. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, New Delhi
Case Number : Appeal No. 195/REAT/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz REAT (DL) 14
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for the NCT of Delhi and UT of Chandigarh recently held that suo-motu proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act cannot be initiated merely on the basis of an RTI query, particularly after a project has been completed and possession handed over.
A bench of Judicial Member Lorren Bamniyal observed, “while exercising the suo-moto powers vested in it under the statute, there is an element of caution to be exercised by the Authority, more especially in cases where the project has been completed and possession of the units has been handed over to the buyers. There is an inbuilt requirement of caution by way of a prior enquiry and / or investigation into elements / information which is forming the basis for initiation of the suo moto proceedings. This can also be done by seeking information from the Promoter by way of a formal letter initially instead of straightaway taking resort to the enabling powers under Section 35 and 37 of the Act. Suo-moto proceedings cannot solely be based on a mere complaint received by the Authority or an RTI query being filed before it, as is the case in the present appeal”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Telangana RERA
RERA Does Not Prescribe Mandatory Or Uniform Format For Sale Deed: Telengana RERA
Case Title : Ravi Kumar Anchoori v. M/s Candeur Developers & Builders
Case Number : Complaint No. 277 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(TS) 50
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG-RERA) has dismissed a complaint seeking interest on Rs 62.5 lakh refunded by a developer, holding that an allottee cannot insist on a particular drafting format of a sale deed in the absence of a statutory mandate under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Clarifying the position, the Authority held, "At the outset, this Authority finds it necessary to observe that neither the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 nor the Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 prescribe any mandatory or uniform format for a Sale Deed. The statutory framework under RERA provides a model format only for the Agreement for Sale, with the object of ensuring transparency at the pre-conveyance stage. The Sale Deed, being an instrument of conveyance, is governed primarily by the applicable laws, and the contractual understanding between the parties. Therefore, the contents and structure of the Sale Deed necessarily flow from the terms agreed between the parties, subject to compliance with general registration requirements and in accord with RE(R&D) Act provisions, and an allottee cannot insist upon incorporation of matters which are not statutorily mandated."
Maharashtra RERA
MahaRERA Directs Piramal Estate To Waive 50% Interest & GST On Homebuyer For Delayed Instalment
Case Title : Tushar Dnyandeo Jagdale Versus Piramal Estate Private Limited
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12502588
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 44
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on 23 February directed Piramal Estate to waive 50% of the interest and GST levied on a homebuyer for delayed payment of an instalment in its Thane project.
A Bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member-I) observed that the delay could not be attributed solely to the homebuyer, as issuance of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the builder also contributed to the delay in loan disbursement. The Bench noted:
“In view of these facts and circumstances, MahaRERA is of the considered view that the levy of the entire interest and GST by the respondent for the period from 06-05-2025 to 04-06-2025 is not fully justified".
Case Title : Elkan Saphania Moses Versus Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. CC006000000198193
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 51
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently rejected a complaint filed by a homebuyer seeking a refund of Rs 76.28 lakh allegedly forfeited by Piramal Estates after cancellation of a flat booking, holding that once a registered cancellation deed was executed and the refund was accepted, the transaction could not be reopened.
Member Ravindra Deshpande observed that the complainant had accepted the refund in November 2019 and raised the dispute only later.
“The Complainant, after accepting the refund amount in November 2019, has sought to raise the present dispute only subsequently by issuing a legal notice and filing the complaint, which appears to be an afterthought,” the authority said.
Case Title : Rajkumar Through Legal Heirs Yogesh Agrawal and Ors. Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd and Another
Case Number : Complaint No. CC12501926 and Another
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(MH) 46
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held Sahara Prime City Ltd liable for a delay of over a decade in handing over possession of flats in its Nagpur project. The authority directed the developer to refund Rs 33.84 lakh and Rs 20.87 lakh paid by two homebuyers along with interest.
A bench comprising Mahesh Pathak observed: “In these circumstances, MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the homebuyers.Hence, the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amounts paid along with applicable interest, irrespective of the fact that no specific date of possession is mentioned in the booking form executed by the complainant at Sr. No. 1."
Haryana RERA
Haryana RERA Directs Builder To Refund Homebuyers Of Mahira Project After Registration Revocation
Case Title : Rudal Yadav v Mahira Buildtech Private Limited and 3 others
Case Number : Complaint No. 4618 of 2025 and 3 others
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 48
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) on 13 February directed Mahira Buildtech to refund the amounts paid by homebuyers in the project Mahira Homes–103 after the project's registration was revoked due to serious irregularities.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Arun Kumar observed that, as the project registration had been revoked and the builder could no longer continue development, the homebuyers were entitled to a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, along with interest.
Haryana RERA Directs Parsvnath Developers To Pay ₹77.63 Lakh Compensation For Delay in Possession
Case Title : Raj Kumar Chawla & Anr Versus Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Complaint No. 803-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(HR) 43
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 24 February directed Parsvnath Hessa Developers to pay Rs. 77.63 lakhs to a homebuyer as compensation for loss of appreciation in property value due to a delay in handing over possession.
A Bench comprising Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar, observed that property prices in Sectors 53 and 54 along Golf Course Road, Gurugram, witnessed significant appreciation between 2012 and 2022. Taking note of the market trend, the Authority held that the value of residential properties in the area had increased by around 50 percent during this period.
The Bench observed:
“Taking an overall approach, it is presumed that prices of residential houses were appreciated during the entire period from September 2012 to September 2022.”
Goa RERA
Project With Occupancy Certificate Cannot Be Treated as 'Ongoing Project' Under RERA: Goa RERA
Case Title : Shakuntala Mesquita v. K.K. Construction & Ors.
Case Number : Complaint No. 348/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA(GA) 47
The Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently dismissed a complaint seeking registration of the “Nuvem Enclave” project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority held that a project or phase which has already obtained a completion or occupancy certificate cannot subsequently be treated as an “ongoing project” requiring registration under Section 3 of the Act.
The authority, comprising Chairperson Dharmendra Sharma observed that: “The defence raised by the Respondent is persuasive on facts and law. The statutory scheme for determining an 'ongoing project' and if it is a 'registrable' project, embeds within its calculus exclusion of projects or phases thereof, for which completion certificate has been issued.”
Punjab RERA
Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe Chandigarh Developers To Pay 10.80% Interest For Delayed Possession
Case Title : Bharat Singh Bisht & Anr Versus M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Complaint No.0344 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz RERA (CH) 42
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) on 2 March directed Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers to pay interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum to a homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
A Bench comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh observed:
“Respondent is further directed to pay interest under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2016 at the rate of 10.80% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant from the date of this order till the delivery of valid legal possession of the flat.”
The Authority noted that the total consideration also included the Homebuyer's proportionate share in common areas and facilities, such as lifts, corridors, electrical connections, plumbing, and other project amenities. Therefore, the Homebuyer's contention seeking a refund of the amount allegedly charged on the basis of super area was rejected.
Tamil Nadu RERA
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) has recently dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyers against Godrej SSPDL Green Acres LLP, the developer of the residential project “Godrej Azure – Twr 2 – Emerald” in Kancheepuram district, seeking rectification of alleged structural defects in their flat or, in the alternative, refund of the purchase amount.
A coram comprising Members Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. D. Jagannathan (Retd. IAS) held that the refund could not be granted as the complainants had already taken possession of the flat in June 2020 and continued to remain in possession. The Authority also noted that records showed the developer had undertaken rectification works when complaints were raised.
The bench observed:
“Upon the perusal of documents filed by the Respondents, the job cards dated 18.07.2021, 03.08.2021 and 30.04.2022 shows that the rectification works were taken up by the Respondents and the same was acknowledged by the complainants and their Tenant."