LiveLawBiz RERA Cases Weekly Digest: February 9 - February 15, 2026
Shivani PS
15 Feb 2026 9:30 AM IST
Nominal Index
Angad Jot Singh Multani v. Estate Officer, Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority (PDA) and M/s Omaxe Limited 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 25
Embassy One Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 19
Latha Jayesh Chaudhary & Anr. v. Keyana Estate LLP 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 24
MP Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Briddhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Others 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 11
R-Tech Capital Galleria Jaipur LLP v. Ravi Tara & Anr. 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 26
TARC Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 8
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Naresh Sharma 2026 LLBiz SC 61
Supreme Court
Case Title : The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Naresh Sharma
Case Number : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5835 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 61
The Supreme Court permitted the Himachal Pradesh Government to shift the office of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) from Shimla to Dharamshala, staying the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order that had restrained the move. A Bench comprising the Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that “operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
The Court further ordered, “the State is permitted to shift the office of RERA to the place of its choice however, this shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition pending at the High Court.”
The court also directed that, to ensure that persons affected by RERA orders are not inconvenienced, “the appellate powers may be shifted from the Principal District Judge, Shimla to the Principal District Judge, Dharamshala.”
High Court
Case Title : Embassy One Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14899 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 19
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the existence of an appellate remedy does not prevent it from exercising writ jurisdiction in a real estate dispute where due opportunity has not been afforded to one of the parties.
The court set aside a Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing Embassy One Developers Pvt Ltd to pay over Rs. 4.24 crore as delay interest without considering its objections.
Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad said, “An alternative remedy need not always be a reason for this Court to refuse the exercise of the discretion and plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” The court added, “for complete adjudication with due opportunity, the Authorities must consider Statement of Objections filed.”
It further observed that if liability to pay interest is imposed, “it must be with a reasonable opportunity lest there be reason for multiplicity in the proceedings”
Real Estate Appellate Tribunals
Haryana REAT
Case Title : TARC Ltd. v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case Number : Appeal No. 225 of 2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz REAT (HR) 8
Terming the forfeiture of Rs. 25 lakh for a two-day delay in submitting fire scheme approval “grossly disproportionate,” the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority against developer M/s TARC Limited.
A coram comprising Chairman Justice Rajan Gupta and Members Dr. Virender Parshad and Dinesh Singh Chauhan observed, “Forfeiture of 25 lakhs for such a minor infraction, especially when other compliances were impeccable and no homebuyer prejudice is shown, is grossly disproportionate. Penalties under RERA must be just and equitable, not punitive for technicalities. Thus, equity demands setting aside the forfeiture."
"Penalties under RERA must be just and equitable, not punitive for technicalities", the tribunal held.
Madhya Pradesh REAT
Case Title : MP Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. Briddhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Case Number : Misc. Appeal No. 7743 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 11
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently set aside an order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal after finding that it was passed by an improperly constituted Bench. The court held that the Tribunal decided the case without the participation of a Technical Member, a requirement mandated by law. Such an order, it said, cannot stand. “As per the provisions of Section 45 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal must consist of the Chairman and two members, one of whom must be a Technical Member,” the Court held. The impugned order, it added, “cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
On examining the record, it found that the impugned order was passed only by the Chairman and a Judicial Member, with no Technical Member involved. Relying on G.S. Enterprises v. Yogesh Agrawal, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 45 is mandatory. “The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order impugned, thus, stands set aside,” it held.
Rajasthan REAT
Rajasthan REAT Refuses To Condone 194-Day Delay, Says RERA Overrides General Limitation Principles
Case Title : R-Tech Capital Galleria Jaipur LLP v. Ravi Tara & Anr.
Case Number : Appeal No. 207/2025
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (RJ) 26
The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone a 194-day delay by a developer in filing an appeal, holding that no “sufficient cause” was shown. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The tribunal observed that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is a “special law” that overrides “general law.” It said the Supreme Court's ruling in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013), which calls for a liberal approach in such applications, did not help the developer in the present case.
The Bench of Chairman Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma said allowing such delay, “and that too without any justifiable reason, would defeat the very purpose of the RERA Act, 2016, which has been framed to provide substantial justice to the allottees within a reasonable time.”
Real Estate Regulatory Authorities
Punjab RERA
Case Title: Angad Jot Singh Multani v. Estate Officer, Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority (PDA) and M/s Omaxe Limited
Case Number: RERA/GC No. 0181 of 2023 UR
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (PB) 25
Holding that the delay “stands admitted and cannot be justified,” the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed Omaxe Limited and the Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority to refund the entire principal amount received for a flat after more than 12 years of delay in possession. Interest will be payable from the date the subsequent purchaser was recognised as an allottee.
In its order dated 29.01.2026, Member Runvir Vashisht held, “The plea that RERA provisions are inapplicable is not tenable because the cause of action continues until possession is delivered or refund is made. Hence, the jurisdiction of this Authority is attracted.”
The Authority rejected the defence of force majeure and pending litigation. It observed, “The plea of force majeure and pendency of litigation does not absolve the respondents of their liability, particularly when the project stands unregistered and development work has remained incomplete for more than a decade.” It further noted that the delay “stands admitted and cannot be justified.”
Maharashtra RERA
'Blatant Disregard of Law': MahaRERA Penalises Keyana Estate Over Delay In Mumbai Project
Case Title : Latha Jayesh Chaudhary & Anr. v. Keyana Estate LLP
Case Number : Complaint Numbers: CC12400582 and CC12400583
Citation : 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 24
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh on developer Keyana Estate LLP for delaying possession of flats in its Kalpataru Radiance D project in Mumbai and for raising technical objections to the maintainability of homebuyers' complaints. The Authority, led by Chairperson Manoj Saunik, held the developer liable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and criticised it for exhibiting what it described as a “blatant disregard to the law and fair business practices".
Emphasising that the provision governing delayed possession is absolute, the Authority observed that “such acts if condoned on grounds of legal technicalities will defeat the noble objective of this beneficial legislation”.
Uttar Pradesh RERA
Circular
UP RERA Mandates Training For Real Estate Agents, Requires Certificate For Registration And Renewal
In a recent regulatory order dated 5 January 2026, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) introduced a revised and mandatory Training & Certification framework for Real Estate Agents. The order makes completion of training and certification a pre-condition for the submission and processing of fresh registration, renewal, or amendment applications for real estate agents. It clarifies that no individual, partnership firm, LLP, company, or society can seek registration or modify its status without first completing the prescribed training programme and passing the competency examination.
The new framework has been issued under Regulation 54 of the UP RERA (General) Regulations, 2019 (7th Amendment) and aims to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements and actual practices of agents on the ground. It supersedes the earlier training guidelines issued by the Authority on 10 October 2025.
The programme is structured as a four-day non-residential training, concluding with a mandatory examination on the final day. Further, the requirement applies to individual agents as well as partnerships, LLPs, companies, and societies registered as agents.
The order makes it mandatory for previously registered agents to complete training and obtain certification by 31 December 2026.