Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 23 September 2026 (Judgment pronounced; reserved on 16 September 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: JP Builders and Developers (promoter, represented by proprietor Jayant Shashikant Parikh) vs. Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu (allottee). Cross‑appeals filed as Second Appeal No. 116 of 2025 (promoter) and Second Appeal No. 603 of 2025 (allottee).
  • Background: Original lease of 8,200 sq m land (Plot 1, Sector 19, Airoli) granted by CIDCO to Airoli Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd. Development Agreement dated 27 April 2004 with JP Builders. Construction of Wings C and D completed; balance FSI of 824 sq m remained.
  • The society sought additional FSI; after litigation, CIDCO allotted 4,313.94 sq m on 7 April 2017. Revised Commencement Certificate (26 April 2019) allowed a 19‑storey building.
  • Initial booking: Vandana and Nagendra Kharatmol paid Rs 12,30,000 for Flat A‑502 (letter of allotment 28 May 2011). They later transferred the booking to Santosh Sandhu, who paid the same amount (letter of allotment 11 July 2013).
  • The promoter repeatedly demanded payment of stamp duty (Rs 4,35,000) and registration charges (Rs 30,000). The allottee claimed to have transferred Rs 4,65,000 on 9 July 2019 but no challan was generated; the amount was later refunded by the bank.
  • On 30 July 2019 the promoter issued a termination notice, citing non‑payment of stamp duty and registration charges. The allottee contested the termination, alleging payment of stamp duty.
  • Maha RERA (interim order 6 March 2020, final order 8 October 2020) directed the promoter to execute a registered Agreement for Sale under Section 13 of RERA and to allot a flat of equal area.
  • Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (order 22 October 2024) dismissed the promoter’s appeal, partly allowed the allottee’s appeal, and directed payment of interest on Rs 12,30,000 at SBI MCLR + 2% from 12 July 2016, to be adjusted against the balance consideration.
  • Both parties appealed to the High Court. The Court framed five questions of law concerning stamp‑duty payment, validity of termination, authority of Maha RERA and the Tribunal to direct execution of the agreement, interest adjustment, and adjustment of the Kharatmol payments.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the allottee did not pay stamp duty or registration charges before 30 July 2019; therefore the promoter was justified in terminating the transaction.
  • Consequently, the Court set aside the Maha RERA order (Complaint No. CC006000000100328, dated 8 Oct 2020) and the Appellate Tribunal order (dated 22 Oct 2024).
  • The promoter is ordered to return the full booking amount of Rs 12,30,000 to the allottee with interest at SBI’s MCLR + 2% from 12 July 2016 until actual repayment.
  • The promoter’s Second Appeal No. 116 of 2025 is partly allowed; the allottee’s Second Appeal No. 603 of 2025 is dismissed.
  • No costs awarded; the pending interim application is disposed of.

Topics: Real Estate Regulation, Contract Dispute