MREAT Stays MahaRERA Recall Order After Finding Two Digitally Signed Versions Of Same Order

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) recently stayed a recall order passed by the MahaRERA Chairperson, holding that inherent powers cannot be exercised where the statute provides an express appellate remedy. The Tribunal also raised serious concerns over the existence of two digitally signed versions of the same order in a single complaint.

A Tribunal comprising Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde and Member Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande passed the interim order in an appeal filed by homebuyers Pramod Ashtekar and another, staying the recall order and observing that the matter warranted investigation. The Bench held:

“integrity of judicial proceedings is of paramount importance to ensure trust of the litigants and public on the judicial forums".

The appellants had purchased a flat in the Mumbai-based project ACE and Matchpoint, developed by Nirmal Lifestyle Limited, for Rs.1.02 crore. The agreed possession date was December 2015.

After delay in handing over possession, the parties entered into consent terms in 2018, under which Nirmal Lifestyle agreed to pay Rs.60,535 per month till possession. Alleging breach, the homebuyers initiated non-compliance proceedings. Meanwhile, Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. took over the project under Section 15 of the RERA Act.

The Adjudicating Officer passed an execution order dated 14 November 2024, later modified on 5 March 2025, directing issuance of a recovery warrant against Ricardo Constructions in the non-compliance proceedings.

Thereafter, the MahaRERA Chairperson passed an order dated 10 September 2025, and another digitally signed version dated 9 September 2025, under Regulation 39, recalling and setting aside both the recovery orders. Regulation 39 provides the Authority with inherent power to pass orders necessary to ensure justice and prevent abuse of its process.

On 11 December 2025, the Adjudicating Officer held that execution could not proceed pursuant to the recall order. Aggrieved, the homebuyers filed the present appeal challenging the recall order and the consequential execution order.

They argued that inherent powers under Regulation 39 must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or review. They contended that the Adjudicating Officer had jurisdiction to decide non-compliance proceedings and that the recall order effectively modified a final order without due process.

Ricardo Constructions, on the other hand, argued that execution could not proceed against a party that was not part of the original consent terms. It submitted that inherent powers allow recall of orders to prevent injustice, especially where jurisdictional errors are involved.

Examining the record, the Tribunal, noted procedural lapses. It found that the date of hearing never appeared on the official cause list.

The Tribunal further noted that there were “two versions of the order” passed by the Chairperson. One dated 9 September 2025 and another dated 10 September 2025. Both digitally signed, with variations in certain paragraphs. One version recorded that “the respondents have failed to place on record any written submissions to counter claims of the applicant,” while this paragraph was missing in the other.

In this backdrop, the Tribunal held that the matter warrants a detailed probe by the Authority into how two digitally signed orders with altered contents came to be issued. It also held that while the Authority may invoke inherent powers to meet the ends of justice, such powers cannot be exercised where the statute provides an express remedy, including a right of appeal under the RERA Act.

It further noted that the decision by the Authority without giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties was a “gross violation of principles of natural justice.”

Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to remand the matter at the interim stage and held that the impugned recall order deserves to be stayed pending final disposal of the appeal.

For the Appellants- Pramod Ashtekar and Another: Advocates Nilesh Gala with Samyak Dedhia

For Respondent No 1- Nirmal Lifestyle Limited: Advocate Tanish Amin

For Respondent No 2 - Ricardo Constructions Pvt Ltd: Advocates Nimay Dave with Rubin Vakil and Sakshi Mehta