High Court Dismisses Developer's Challenge to MahaRERA Order on Financial Liabilities — Upholds Interest Payment Obligations. The court found that the incoming developer could be held liable for interest on amounts owed to allottees under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dealt with two writ petitions concerning the liability of an incoming developer for financial obligations incurred by an erstwhile developer in a real estate redevelopment project. The petitioner, H. Rishabraj Developers, challenged an order from the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) that directed both the petitioner and the erstwhile developer to pay interest on a principal amount of Rs. 37 lakhs owed to flat purchasers. The petitioner contended that it was not a party to the original order requiring payment and argued that MahaRERA lacked the authority to review its own orders. The court noted that the petitioner had executed a development agreement with the trust that owned the property and had completed the redevelopment. The court found that the liability for the financial obligations of the erstwhile developer could be transferred to the new developer, particularly regarding interest payments. The court also addressed the review powers of MahaRERA, concluding that it had the jurisdiction to review its orders based on subsequent events, such as the default of the erstwhile developer. The court ultimately upheld the order of MahaRERA, affirming the new developer's liability for interest payments while rejecting claims for compensation due to lack of evidence. The decision emphasized the importance of ensuring that allottees are not left without recourse due to the defaults of developers. The court dismissed the petitions challenging the orders of MahaRERA and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

Headnote

A) Real Estate Law - Liability of Incoming Developer - Financial Obligations - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Sections 15, 18 - The court examined the liability of the new developer for the financial obligations of the erstwhile developer towards flat purchasers, holding that the new developer could be held liable for interest on amounts paid by allottees. (Paras 1-5).

B) Review Powers of MahaRERA - Jurisdiction to Review Orders - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - The court addressed the issue of whether MahaRERA has the power to review its own orders, concluding that such power exists under the regulations, and the review was justified based on subsequent events. (Paras 7-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the incoming developer is liable for the financial obligations incurred by the erstwhile developer towards purchasers of flats in a redevelopment project.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court upheld the order of MahaRERA, affirming the new developer's liability for interest payments on the principal amount owed to allottees and dismissed the petitions challenging the orders.

Law Points

  • Liability of incoming developer
  • Review powers of MahaRERA
  • Interest on principal amount
  • RERA Act
  • 2016
  • Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
  • 1966
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (11) 15

W P No. 894 of 2024 and W P No. 7618 of 2022

2026-11-05

Gautam A. Ankhad, Suman Shyam

Mayur Khandeparkar, A. K. Saxena, T.R. Yadav, P.B. Kadam, Vinodini Srinivasan, Himanshu Takke, Nikita Jacob

H. Rishabraj Developers

State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Kinjal M. Karia, Mahesh Karia, Jayant Mehta, Khambhati Modh Vanik Samaj

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging orders of MahaRERA regarding financial obligations of developers.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the order directing payment of interest and the attachment of bank accounts.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed lack of liability for the erstwhile developer's obligations.

Previous Decisions

MahaRERA had previously ordered the erstwhile developer to refund amounts to allottees.

Issues

Whether the incoming developer is liable for the financial obligations of the erstwhile developer. Whether MahaRERA has the power to review its own orders.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued it was not a party to the original order and MahaRERA lacked review power. Respondents contended that the petitioner was notified and participated in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The incoming developer can be held liable for financial obligations of the erstwhile developer under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, particularly regarding interest payments to allottees.

Judgment Excerpts

These two Writ Petitions raise a common question concerning the liability of an incoming developer for the financial obligations incurred by an erstwhile developer towards purchasers of flats in a redevelopment project. The Petitioner was not a party to the original order dated 17th May 2018 which required Respondent No.5-erstwhile developer to pay Rs. 37 lakhs to Respondent nos. 3 and 4. MahaRERA has no power to review its own orders. The Review-cum-Execution Application filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 falls within the scope of Regulation 36 of the RERA Regulations. The impugned order passed on remand does not enlarge the scope of the original order dated 17th May 2018 but merely determines the issue of interest based on subsequent events.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 894 of 2024 challenging the order of MahaRERA dated 21st March 2022, and Writ Petition No. 7618 of 2022 challenging the attachment orders dated 23rd March 2022 and 30th May 2022. Both petitions were heard together due to common questions of law and fact.

Acts & Sections

  • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act: 15, 18
  • Maharashtra Land Revenue Code: 180
  • Maharashtra Public Trusts Act: 36
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act: 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Claim in Land Grabbing Case — Jurisdiction of Special Tribunal Affirmed.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against School Secretary in Child Death Case Due to Lack of Criminal Negligence. Incident of Child Falling into Cooking Pan Held Accidental, Not Attributable to Any Rash or Negligent Act of Applicant Und...