Dismissed¶25

Ashapura Housing Private Limited v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026WP/16921/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RERA 2016 Section 43(5); appeal to Appellate Tribunal; pre-deposit proviso interdict; MAHARERA Adjudicating Officer; Non-Compliance Application; recovery warrant 19.09.2024; warrant of attachment 23.05.2025; demand notice 25.08.2025 Rs.24,39,332; bank account freezed; Complaint No.197050; delayed possession interest; writ jurisdiction circumventing statutory remedy; writ petition dismissed; review application left open; Ashapura Housing Pvt. Ltd. promoter; Bombay High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; WRIT PETITION NO.16921 OF 2025; N.J. Jamadar, J.; decision 3 February 2026; neutral citation 2026:BHC-AS:6459-DB.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner has evidently invoked the writ jurisdiction to circumvent the statutory remedy. ¶18

Ashapura Housing Private Limited vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition seeking diverse reliefs against the recovery warrant, attachment warrant and demand notice issued in pursuance of MAHARERA's order dated 16 February 2024 can be entertained in writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding the statutory remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of RERA, 2016 subject to pre-deposit.

¶17

Court's answer

The Petitioner has evidently invoked the writ jurisdiction to circumvent the statutory remedy.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

It does not appear that the Petitioner challenged the order passed by MAHARERA dated 19 September 2024 before the Appellate Tribunal; the Petitioner instead claims to be aggrieved by the recovery warrant, the consequent attachment warrant and the notices issued by the revenue authorities.

¶18

Key takeaways

Under Section 43(5) of RERA, 2016, any person aggrieved by any direction, decision or order of the Authority or of any Adjudicating Officer has the remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.ratio¶19
The proviso contains an interdict against entertaining such appeal without pre-deposit of the percentage of the due amount as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal.ratio¶22
Without invoking the remedy of appeal, the Petitioner filed a review application before the Adjudicating Officer and, asserting that it was not heard, invoked the writ jurisdiction.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Jamadar, J.; decision 3 February 2026) dismissed the writ petition filed by Ashapura Housing Pvt. Ltd. (promoter) against execution-stage measures flowing from MAHARERA's common judgment and order dated 16 February 2024 in Complaint No.197050 (filed by Respondent No.5 and 16 other complainants) directing payment of interest for delayed possession: the Adjudicating Officer's recovery-warrant order of 19 September 2024 and attachment warrant of 23 May 2025, Respondent No.2's demand notice of 25 August 2025 for Rs.24,39,332/- payable within 10 days, and the consequent freeze of the Petitioner's bank account. Held: Section 43(5) of RERA, 2016 confers on aggrieved persons an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, interdicted by proviso unless pre-deposit of a percentage of dues is made; the Petitioner neither appealed nor appeared to have challenged the 19 September 2024 order before the Tribunal, and instead sought review before the Adjudicating Officer; invoking writ jurisdiction so as to circumvent the statutory remedy, particularly where appeal is conditioned on pre-deposit, cannot be permitted, as it would frustrate the object of the statutory scheme under RERA, 2016. Writ Petition not entertained and dismissed; review application to be heard and decided in accordance with law, uninfluenced by these observations, as expeditiously as possible.

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:6459-DB

¶2

7 wp 16921 of 2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16921 OF 2025

¶4

Ashapura Housing Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner versus Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Aman Kacheria with Mr. Rishabh Dhanuka, Ms. Mahima Shah, Mr. Murtuza Bohra i/by Agarwal and Dhanuka Legal, for Petitioner. Mr. S.P.Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6.

¶6

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 3 FEBRUARY 2026

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

A complaint filed by the Respondent No.5, being Complaint No.197050,

¶11

and 16 other complainants were disposed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MAHARERA) by a common judgment and order dated 16 February 2024, directing, inter alia, the promoter – the Petitioner herein, to pay interest for the delayed possession on the actual amount paid by the complainants towards consideration for the flats to the complainants.

¶12

On 19 September 2024, the Adjudicating Officer, MAHARERA passed

¶13

an order in Non-Compliance Application in the said complaints thereby issuing warrant for recovery of dues from the Petitioner. By a further order dated 23 May 2025, the Adjudicating Officer, MAHARERA issued a warrant of attachment.

¶14

SSP 1/3

¶15

7 wp 16921 of 2025.doc

¶16

The Petitioner claimed to have sought a review of the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer dated 19 September 2024 and 23 May 2025. Yet, Respondent No.2 has issued a demand notice on 25 August 2025 calling upon the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.24,39,332/- within a period of 10 days. Pursuant thereto, the bank account of the Petitioner has been freezed. Hence, this Petition seeking diverse reliefs.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would urge that the Petitioner is not aggrieved by the order dated 16 February 2024 passed by the MAHARERA. The Petitioner has raised objection to the manner in which the directions in the said order are being implemented by misconstruing the said order. Therefore, interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶18

Evidently, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction to circumvent the statutory remedy. It does not seem that the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the MAHARERA dated 19 September 2024, before the Appellate Tribunal. Instead, the Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the recovery warrant issued by the Adjudicating Officer and the consequent attachment warrant and the notices issued by the revenue authorities.

¶19

Under the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by the Authority or by any Adjudicating Officer has a remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The proviso

¶20

SSP 2/3

¶21

7 wp 16921 of 2025.doc

¶22

contains an interdict against entertaining such appeal without pre-deposit of the percentage of the due amount as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal. Without invoking the remedy of appeal, the Petitioner seems to have filed a review application before the Adjudicating Officer. Asserting that the review application is not heard, the Petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction.

¶23

The Petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory remedy by invoking the writ jurisdiction, especially when the right to file an appeal against an order or direction of the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by the condition of pre-deposit. Lest, the very object of the statutory scheme, provided under RERA, 2016 would be frustrated.

¶24

The Writ Petition, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained.

¶25

The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.

¶26

It is, however, clarified that the review application may be heard and decided in accordance with law and without being influenced by the aforesaid observations, as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶28

SSP 3/3

¶29

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/02/2026 19:26:09

Ashapura Housing Private Limited v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashapura Housing Private Limited v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Kantilal Parikh and Ors. vs Neo Builders and Developers Thr. Its Director and Ors.

Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Assistant Director, Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Anr.

Moreshwar Anant Chogale and Ors. vs Rupesh Gaikwad and Ors.

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. vs Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr.

Moreshwar Anant Chogale and Ors. vs Rupesh Gaikwad and Ors.

Prakash Pandurang Thakur and Ors. vs M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd. and Ors.