Justice N.J. Jamadar of the Bombay High Court ruled on June 25, 2026, that the revocation of a real estate project’s RERA registration is not the exclusive remedy for non-compliance with completion orders.

This decision specifically addresses the stalled “Shri Vallabh Residency” project in Kandivali (West), Mumbai, where allottees have sought to execute tribunal orders through other legal means. The ruling offers a significant clarification for homebuyers grappling with developer inaction, reinforcing their ability to push for project completion even if a developer’s registration remains intact.

High Court broadens homebuyers’ enforcement options

The Bombay High Court’s ruling on June 25, 2026, delivered by Justice N.J. Jamadar, has recalibrated the approach to enforcement under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The court affirmed that while revocation of a project’s RERA registration is one available option, it isn’t the only remedy consumers have when developers fail to comply with project completion directives.

This judgment came during appeals filed by allottees of the delayed “Shri Vallabh Residency” project located in Kandivali (West), Mumbai. These homebuyers were seeking to amend their execution applications to pursue alternative methods for project completion after repeated non-compliance from the developer, Swadhinta Builders LLP.

Dispute highlights RERA enforcement nuances

The core of the dispute revolved around the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) rejecting a proposed amendment to the allottees’ execution applications. MahaREAT had reasoned that homebuyers had the liberty to seek revocation of the project’s registration under RERA as a primary recourse. However, the Bombay High Court disagreed with this narrow interpretation.

Justice Jamadar stated, “If the revocation of registration was to be provided as a panacea for the disobedience of the orders passed by the Authorities under the RERA 2016, the Parliament would not have made multiple provisions for enforcement of the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act.” This quote underscores the court’s view that RERA offers a spectrum of enforcement mechanisms, not a single, all-encompassing solution.

Specific case of Shri Vallabh Residency

The “Shri Vallabh Residency” project in Kandivali (West) has been a source of frustration for homebuyers for years. Rajan Chandiramani, a representative appellant, was allotted a flat in the project back in October 2010. The original purchase price for his flat was approximately ₹49 lakh, of which he had paid ₹7.5 lakh.

Despite these early commitments, the project faced significant delays. In March 2020, MahaRERA declined to issue certain directions due to the developer lacking a commencement certificate, but it did safeguard the allottees’ rights. Later, in June 2022, MahaREAT partially allowed the allottees’ appeals, instructing Swadhinta Builders LLP to execute agreements for sale within 30 days and complete the project within 12 months after securing necessary approvals.

Procedural history and the high court’s intervention

The developer, Swadhinta Builders LLP, failed to adhere to MahaREAT’s 2022 directives. This led to further action by the tribunal. By June 2024, MahaREAT issued recovery warrants against the developer and imposed a daily penalty of ₹5,000 for failing to execute the agreements for sale.

However, when allottees sought to amend their execution applications in July 2025 to explore project completion through alternative agencies, MahaREAT rejected part of their request. The Tribunal reiterated that seeking revocation of the project’s registration was the available remedy, essentially suggesting a more limited path for the homebuyers.

Crucial legal interpretation by Justice Jamadar

The Bombay High Court, in its recent ruling, found that MahaREAT had erred by evaluating the merits of the proposed amendment during the amendment stage itself. The High Court clarified that the allottees’ proposed amendment wasn’t introducing a new claim; rather, it sought an additional method to execute the tribunal’s previous order. This aligns with the powers vested in an executing court.

Justice Jamadar specifically invoked Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This provision empowers an executing court to direct that an act mandated by a decree be performed by the decree-holder or another party appointed by the court, with all expenses recovered from the non-compliant party. This legal backing provides a significant tool for homebuyers to take proactive steps in completing their stalled projects.

Broader implications for RERA and homebuyers

This ruling reinforces the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, as a robust mechanism for consumer protection. The RERA Act, which came into force on May 1, 2016, was designed to bring transparency and accountability to India’s real estate sector. The Bombay High Court’s interpretation ensures that the Act’s provisions are not stifled by overly restrictive procedural interpretations.

The decision provides homebuyers with increased confidence that they are not beholden to a single, potentially lengthy, and often insufficient remedy like registration revocation. It allows for a more dynamic and effective pursuit of project completion, which is often the ultimate goal for those who’ve invested their savings.

RERA and builder compliance: a continuing challenge

Despite RERA’s existence, issues of project delays and non-compliance by developers persist. This Bombay High Court judgment comes at a time when consumer protection under RERA remains a critical area of focus. It emphasizes that regulatory authorities and appellate tribunals must facilitate, rather than restrict, the avenues available to homebuyers for achieving justice. Many homebuyers, including those who are NRIs using RERA and consumer laws to recover investments from fraudulent builders, often find themselves in protracted legal battles.

The ability for allottees to propose project completion directly, perhaps through another appointed agency, directly addresses scenarios where a developer intentionally drags their feet or lacks the financial capability to finish construction. This could significantly reduce the time homebuyers spend waiting for their properties.

RERA framework and precedent-setting rulings

The RERA Act itself contains provisions beyond just revocation, such as Sections 7 and 8, which deal with regulatory actions and project completion arrangements after revocation. The court has now made it clear that these are not exclusive, but rather part of a broader set of tools.

This recent ruling builds on a foundation established by earlier significant judgments concerning RERA. For instance, the Bombay High Court had previously upheld the constitutional validity of RERA on December 6, 2017, in a judgment delivered by a division bench of Justices Naresh Patil and R.G. Ketkar. That landmark decision confirmed RERA’s applicability to ongoing projects and mandated developers to deposit 70% of buyer funds into an escrow account.

Homebuyers’ absolute right to delay interest confirmed

Just weeks earlier, on June 8, 2026, another significant ruling from Justice Madhav Jamdar of the Bombay High Court further strengthened homebuyers’ rights. That decision held that buyers are absolutely entitled to interest for every month of delay in possession under RERA, even if they choose to remain in the delayed project. This right, pronounced absolute, isn’t contingent on