Dismissed¶25

Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Karthik Velamakanni

Bombay HC6 May 2026SA/230/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal No. 230 of 2026; Rare Township Pvt Ltd v. Karthik Velamakanni & Anr.; Bombay High Court; N. J. Jamadar, J.; 6 May 2026; RERA Act 2016; Section 11(5) cancellation of agreement; Section 18 allottee refund; Appellate Tribunal interim stay of Authority's order dated 7 August 2025; appeal against interim order raises no substantial question of law; cancellation deed by allottees; Interim Application 3375 of 2026 disposed; second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The fact that the allottee seeks refund of the amount of consideration does not imply that the allottee cannot question the action of termination of the agreement by the promoter; the Appellate Tribunal had recorded that the allottees have an indefeasible right to seek refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act. ¶19

Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. vs Karthik Velamakanni — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Tribunal could stay the execution and operation of the Authority's order permitting cancellation of the agreement where the allottees have elected to seek refund of the amount paid. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In an appeal against an interim order, no substantial question of law arises for consideration; all questions of fact and law are to be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal, and if during the pendency of the appeal the Authority's order were given effect to, the appeal would be rendered infructuous.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.), decision dated 6th May 2026, dismissed Second Appeal No. 230 of 2026 filed by Rare Township Pvt Ltd (promoter-appellant) against Karthik Velamakanni & Anr. (allottee-respondents). The appeal challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 5th March 2026 staying the RERA Authority's order dated 7th August 2025, by which the Authority had permitted the appellant-promoter to take recourse to Section 11(5) of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 for cancellation of the agreement for sale and had directed the allottees to execute the cancellation deed. The judgment records: (i) an allottee's election to seek refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act does not imply that the allottee cannot question the promoter's termination of the agreement; and (ii) in an appeal against an interim order no substantial question of law arises, all questions of fact and law being for adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal, whose opportunity to do complete justice would be lost if the Authority's order took effect during pendency. Interim Application No. 3375 of 2026 was disposed as nothing survived in view of the dismissal.

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.05.08 14:42:10 +0530

¶2

11.SA230.2026.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2026

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3375 OF 2026

¶8

Rare Township Pvt Ltd … Appellants. Versus Karthik Velamakanni & Anr. … Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Rubin Vakil, Ayushi Aanadpara, Shubham Hundia, Sandesh Panchal i/b. Satyaki Law Associates, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Amey Patil a/w. Mr. Jayesh Rathod, Advocate for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 6^th MAY 2026

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 5^th March, 2026 whereby the Appellate Tribunal has stayed the order passed by the Authority on 7^th August, 2025 whereby the Authority had permitted the Appellantpromoter to take recourse to Section 11(5) of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 (RERA Act) for cancellation of the

1/3

Talwalkar

11.SA230.2026.DOC

agreement for sale and directed the Respondents – allottees to execute the cancellation deed. The Respondents – allottees being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since the allottees have elected to seek refund of the amount, allegedly paid by the allottees, the Appellate Tribunal could not have stayed the execution and operation of the order permitting the cancellation of the agreement. It was submitted that the Appellant is willing to secure the interest of the allottees during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶19

The Appellate Tribunal has recorded that the allottees have an indefeasible right to seek refund of the amount of consideration in terms of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the RERA Act. The impugned order is passed at an interim stage awaiting the adjudication of the appeal. The fact that the allottee seeks refund of the amount of consideration does not imply that the allottee cannot question the action of termination of the agreement by the

promoter.

2/3

Talwalkar

11.SA230.2026.DOC

All the questions of facts and law are required to be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal. If during the pendency of the Appeal, the order of Authority is given effect to, the Appeal would be rendered infructuous and the Appellate Tribunal would be denuded of the opportunity to pass appropriate order to do complete justice between the parties. Therefore, in an appeal against an interim order, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶25

6. The Second Appeal stands dismissed.

¶26

In view of dismissal of the Appeal, nothing survives in the

¶27

Interim Application. Hence, the Interim Application No. 3375 of 2026 also stands disposed.

¶28

3/3

¶29

Talwalkar

Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Karthik Velamakanni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Karthik Velamakanni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vedant Infracon Thr Its Partner Mr Rahul Premprakash Goel vs Mr. Ganesh Balasheb Shendkar and Ors.

Khajabhai Sangam Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. Throu. Abdul V.G. Chaudhary and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Housing Dept and Ors.

Sabira Salim Khan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Nayananben Bhogilal Doshi Since Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors. vs Tejashri Jayntilal Doshi Deceased

Deepak Bhavangi Karani vs State of Maharashtra

Sd Svp Nagar Redevelopment Pvt. Ltd. vs Ashrafuz Zaman Shaikh