Disposed¶46

Mayur L Desai v. State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Law and Judiciary

Bombay HC29 Sept 2025WP/3565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MahaRERA compliance order; Writ Petition 3565 of 2025; Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra; RERA Act 2016 Section 40(2); Maharashtra RERA Recovery Rules 2017 Rule 4; execution of non-compliance orders as civil-court decree; Order XXI Rule 41 and Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC; disclosure of assets in execution; Circular No.49/2025 dated 12.09.2025; Circular No.34A dated 08.04.2025; daily online cause list; pronouncement and publication of reserved orders; further compliance listing 10.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

The disposed Writ Petition was placed for further compliance on 10th November, 2025; Counsel for MahaRERA stated that an appropriate Circular will be issued in compliance and sought time on that ground. ¶46

Mayur L Desai vs State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Law and Judiciary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Has MahaRERA complied with the mechanism for Clause (b) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the operative part of this Court's Judgment dated 24th July, 2025, namely execution of non-compliance orders? +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

Although the mechanism for Clause (d) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the Judgment dated 24th July, 2025 (pronouncement and publication of reserved orders) appears to have been complied with by MahaRERA, Clause (b) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the said Judgment (execution of non-compliance orders) has not been complied with.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The mechanism for Clause (d) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the operative part of the Judgment dated 24th July, 2025 appears to have been complied with by MahaRERA, through the continued system contemplated by Paragraph 2 of Circular No.49/2025 of publishing a daily online cause list of complaints/non-compliance applications, including pronouncement of orders by listing of matters before the respective Bench of MahaRERA and publishing inter alia the reserved orders therein.

¶36

Key takeaways

Under Section 40(2) of the RERA Act, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Recovery of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine payable, Forms of Complaints and Appeal etc.) Rules, 2017, every order passed by MahaRERA shall be enforced by the concerned Adjudicating Officer, Authority or the Appellate Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in a Suit.ratio¶39
It is only in the event that the order cannot be executed by the concerned Adjudicating Officer, Authority or Appellate Tribunal that the subsequent part of Rule 4 — sending the order to the principal civil court for execution — will apply.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ.), compliance order dated 6th October, 2025 in disposed Writ Petition No. 3565 of 2025 (Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), monitoring compliance with Paragraph 31(ii) of the Court's Judgment dated 24th July, 2025 directing MahaRERA to revisit Circular No.34A dated 8th April, 2025 and its SOPs on four mechanisms: (a) urgent listing, (b) execution of non-compliance orders, (c) mentioning of cases, and (d) pronouncement and publication of reserved orders. Held: (i) the mechanism for Clause (d) appears complied with, MahaRERA's Circular No.49/2025 dated 12th September, 2025 continuing the daily online cause list of complaints/non-compliance applications including publication of reserved orders; (ii) the mechanism for Clause (b) — execution of non-compliance orders — has not been complied with. On execution, the Court held that under Section 40(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Recovery of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine payable, Forms of Complaints and Appeal etc.) Rules, 2017, every MahaRERA order must be enforced by the Adjudicating Officer/Authority/Appellate Tribunal in the same manner as a decree or order of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, recourse to the civil court arising only upon failure to execute; consequently the CPC applies, in particular Order XXI Rule 41, requiring MahaRERA to pass asset-disclosure orders in execution, non-compliance attracting the rigors of Order XXI Rule 41(3). Counsel for MahaRERA stated an appropriate Circular would be issued and sought time; the disposed Writ Petition was listed for further compliance on 10th November, 2025.

¶1

8-WP 3565.2025.doc

¶2

Kavita S.J.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3565 OF 2025

Mayur L. Desai

Petitioner

Versus

Digitally signed by KAVITA KAVITA SUSHIL SUSHIL JADHAV JADHAV Date:2025.10.09 15:07:37 +0530

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Anr., ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Ms. Chitrangada Singh & Mr. Ayush Yadav i/b Clove Legal for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Madhura Deshmukh, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. A.K.Saxena for Respondent No.2 – MahaRERA.

¶12

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 6^th OCTOBER, 2025.

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

The Writ Petition had been disposed of by a Judgment

¶16

passed by this Court dated 24^th July, 2025. In Paragraph 31(ii) of the operative part of the said Judgment, MahaRERA was directed to consider revisiting Circular No.34A dated 8^th April, 2025 and its Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), particularly with respect to the mechanism for:

¶17

1/6

¶18

8-WP 3565.2025.doc

¶19

(a) Urgent listing of matters;

¶20

(b) Execution of non-compliance orders;

¶21

¶22

(d) Pronouncement and publication of reserved orders.

¶23

Thereafter, a Circular had been issued by MahaRERA on

¶24

11^th August, 2025. By a subsequent Order dated 4^th September, 2025 passed by this Court, the said Circular was allowed to be withdrawn by the Counsel appearing for MahaRERA as the same was not in compliance with the aforementioned directions of this Court.

¶25

Subsequently, the Circular No.49/2025 dated 12^th September, 2025 has been issued.

¶26

Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the aforementioned direction, the mechanism for Clauses (a) and (c) have been complied with by MahaRERA. However, Clauses (b) and (d) had not been complied with.

¶27

Mr. Naphade has submitted that execution of non compliance orders is required to be in compliance with the provisions of the the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

¶28

2/6

¶29

8-WP 3565.2025.doc

¶30

(“ RERA Act/the said Act ”). He has in particular placed reliance upon Section 40(2) of the said Act read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Recovery of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine payable, Forms of Complaints and Appeal etc.) Rules, 2017 (“ said Rules ”). Under Rule 4 it is provided that for the purpose of sub Section (2) of Section 40, every order passed by the concerned Adjudicating Officer, the Authority, or the Appellate Tribunal shall be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a Suit. In the event, the said order is unable to be executed, the concerned Adjudicating Officer, the Authority, or the Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of the said order to the principal civil court to execute the said order either within the local limits of its jurisdiction where the real estate project is located or the principal court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person against whom the order has been issued resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain along with a certificate stating that such an order has not been executed by it.

¶31

Mr. Naphade has referred to the said Circular dated 12^th September, 2025 and he has submitted that the MahaRERA has failed

¶32

3/6

¶33

8-WP 3565.2025.doc

¶34

to comply with the aforementioned mechanism for Clause (b) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the operative part of the said Judgment.

¶35

Mr. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the MahaRERA has referred to Paragraph 2 of the said Circular dated 12^th September, 2025 which provides that the present system of publishing a daily online cause list of complaints / non-compliance application, including pronouncement of orders by listing of the matters before the respective Bench of MahaRERA, shall be continued. He has submitted that this contemplates pronouncement of orders by listing of the matters before the respective Bench of the MahaRERA and thereafter, publishing inter alia the reserved orders in the online cause list of complaints / non-compliance applications. He has accordingly submitted that the mechanism for Clause (d) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the said Judgment has been complied with.

¶36

Having considered the submissions, in our view, although the mechanism for Clause (d) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the operative part of the said Judgment appears to have been complied with by MahaRERA, Clause (b) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the said Judgment has not been complied with.

¶37

4/6

¶38

8-WP 3565.2025.doc

¶39

We find merit in the submission of Mr. Naphade on behalf of the Petitioner that under the RERA Act, 2016 and in particular Section 40(2) read with Rule 4 of the said Rules, every order passed by MahaRERA shall be enforced by the concerned Adjudicating Officer, Authority or the Appellate Tribunal in the same manner as if it were decree or order made by the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in a Suit. It is only in the event that the said order cannot be executed by the concerned Adjudicating Officer, Authority or the Appellate Tribunal, then, the subsequent part of Rule 4 i.e. of sending the said order to the principal court to execute such order will apply.

¶40

Section 40(2) of the said Act is required to be complied with by the concerned Adjudicating Officer, Authority or Appellate Tribunal in execution of non-compliance orders in the manner as prescribed in Rule 4. Thus, the execution of the said order is to be done in the manner as if it were decree or order made by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a Suit. Accordingly, the provisions of the CPC and in particular Order XXI Rule 41 would apply for execution of the orders. Thus, MahaRERA in execution of non-compliance of order is required to adopt the procedure in Order

¶41

5/6

¶42

8-WP 3565.2025.doc

¶43

XXI Rule 41 of the CPC. This contemplates passing of orders for disclosure of assets by the Respondents and non compliance thereof would attract the rigors of Order XXI Rule 41(3).

¶44

Having brought to the notice of Mr. Saxena, learned Counsel for MahaRERA that there is non provision of the mechanism for Clause (d) of Paragraph 31(ii) of the operative part of the said Judgment, he states that an appropriate Circular will be issued in compliance with the said Clause and has sought for time on that ground.

¶45

Accordingly, the disposed of Writ Petition shall be placed

¶46

for further compliance on 10^th November, 2025.

¶47

[FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

¶48

6/6

Mayur L Desai v. State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Law and Judiciary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur L Desai v. State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Law and Judiciary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Narendra Babarao Deshmukh and Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Subashchandra D Yadav vs the Authorized Officer Icici Bank and Anr.

Abdul Rahim Shaikh and Anr. vs Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Ors.

A (Mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Dipen Subhash Gandhi vs Union of India Thorugh the Ministry of External Affairs

State Bank of India Through Chief Manager Mahesh Sudhakarrao Choudhari vs Presiding Officer Drt Ii, Mumbai