Mumbai, April 8: In a ruling reinforcing the finality of legal proceedings, the Bombay High Court has held that a refund order passed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, cannot be reopened years later on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court judgment.
High Court dismisses developer’s plea
Justice Somasekhar Sunderesan, on April 7, dismissed a petition filed by Marvel Landmarks Pvt Ltd, which had sought to set aside a 2019 refund order and a 2021 recovery order, in relation to a project in Pune.
Background of the case
In 2019, RERA’s adjudicating officer had passed an order directing Marvel to refund Rs 1.35 crore along with 10.2% annual interest to homebuyer Siddharth Mohan Palesha. Marvel did not challenge the order within the statutory appeal period (of 60 days), following which recovery proceedings were initiated.
In 2024, Marvel approached the High Court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd v State of UP rendered the earlier order invalid. It contended that adjudicating officers under RERA can only decide compensation and not grant refunds.
Court rejects reliance on Supreme Court ruling
The High Court rejected this argument, clarifying that Newtech did not address whether adjudicating officers could be delegated refund powers. “The Supreme Court was not dealing with a case of a positive delegation to the Adjudicating Officer,” the court observed, cautioning against reading judgments “out of context”.
RERA framework explained
Explaining the statutory framework, the court held that RERA permits delegation of functions to its officers, including adjudicating officers, except for legislative powers. It noted that while adjudicating officers exclusively handle compensation claims, they can also be entrusted with deciding refund matters.
Delay and finality of orders
On the question of delay, the court was unequivocal. “Once there is a statutory period for an appeal and that period has expired, the order has attained finality,” it said, adding that “closed and concluded matters cannot be reopened” merely because the law is later interpreted differently.
The judge pointed out that Marvel had not only failed to appeal the 2019 order but had also approached the court nearly three years after the Newtech judgment. This delay, along with ongoing recovery proceedings, weighed heavily against granting relief.
Court underscores legal principle
Dismissing the plea, the court remarked that “the law does not protect the indolent”, and declined to interfere with orders that had long since attained finality. It underscored that litigants cannot revive settled disputes under RERA by invoking later judicial developments.
What did the Supreme Court say in Newtech?
In Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd v State of UP (2021), the Supreme Court of India said that RERA authorities can order refunds to homebuyers. It rejected the claim that only adjudicating officers can grant such relief.
Also Watch:
The court explained that adjudicating officers mainly deal with compensation claims, which need detailed hearings. In contrast, refund cases are simpler and can be decided based on documents.
In short, both the RERA authority and its officers can play roles, and refunds are not restricted only to adjudicating officers.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
