Mumbai, Jan 20: The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) rejected a delay condonation plea filed by Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt. Ltd., refusing to entertain its appeal against a MahaRERA order after finding no sufficient cause for an 88-day delay in filing the case.
Tribunal dismisses appeal
The tribunal, headed by Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member (Administrative) Shrikant M. Deshpande, dismissed the promoter’s miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay and consequently disposed of the main appeal filed against allottee Shiv Singh Negi.
Strong observations by the bench
While rejecting the plea, the tribunal made strong observations on the stage at which the appeal was filed, noting:
“The non-compliance proceedings filed by the complainant are at the verge of realising fruits of the impugned order and are on the stage of implementation. Condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal at this stage would amount to refusal of all actions so far pursued painstakingly by the complainant. Entertaining the appeal at this belated stage, in the absence of sufficient cause, would make the complainant run from pillar to post to enforce rights already accrued under the impugned order.”
Failure to comply with MahaRERA order
The tribunal further observed that the promoter had taken no steps to comply with the MahaRERA order even after non-compliance proceedings were initiated.
“This clearly shows the intent of the promoter/developer not to comply with the order passed by the Authority,” the bench said, adding that the promoter had failed to establish any satisfactory explanation for not filing the appeal within the statutory limitation period.
Delay termed deliberate
Holding the conduct to be non-serious and deliberate, the tribunal said the delay formed part of a dilatory strategy adopted with mala fide intentions to delay the implementation of the non-compliance order and the recovery warrants issued against the promoter.
The bench ruled that the averments made in the delay application could not be classified as reasonable in any manner and were unsupported by sufficient cause.
Background of the dispute
Ekta Parksville had challenged the April 17, 2025 order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), which had allowed the homebuyer’s complaint and directed the promoter to grant relief for delay in handing over possession.
Advocate Nilesh Gala, appearing on behalf of the complainant senior citizen, said that MahaRERA had awarded compensation of around Rs 20 lakh to the complainant towards delayed possession of almost five years, against which the promoter had filed an appeal.
Promoter’s defence rejected
The promoter contended that it became aware of the order only on July 15, 2025, when non-compliance proceedings were taken up for hearing. It cited internal consultations within the Ekta Group, attempts at settlement and inter-departmental coordination as reasons for the delay, while also arguing that non-working days and court vacations should be excluded while computing limitation.
However, the tribunal rejected these submissions, observing that the order had been pronounced in open court on April 17, 2025, and was reflected in the cause list and roznama uploaded on the MahaRERA website. The bench noted that the promoter’s advocate was present at the time of pronouncement, rendering the plea of lack of knowledge “false and untenable”.
No clean hands, says tribunal
Terming the statement made on oath as misleading, the tribunal held that the promoter had not approached the court with clean hands and had shown clear negligence.
It further ruled that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not permit exclusion of weekends or public holidays while computing limitation, except where the final day falls on a court holiday.
The bench also held that internal administrative procedures of a large real estate company cannot constitute sufficient cause for delay, particularly when the promoter possessed adequate legal and financial resources to pursue the appeal in time.
Appeal filed after coercive action
Noting that recovery warrants had already been issued against the developer on October 13, 2025, the tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed only after coercive action commenced, indicating dilatory tactics aimed at postponing the allottee’s lawful relief.
Also Watch:
Accordingly, the tribunal rejected the delay condonation application and ruled that the appeal itself could not survive. The accompanying stay application was also dismissed, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
