KEEMAYA BUILD PRIVATE LIMITEDversusNITIN M DESHPANDE

                                                        902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6655 OF 2026
                                     WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6765 OF 2026
                                       IN
                   SECOND APPEAL(ST) NO.22285 OF 2026
                                     WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6842 OF 2026
                                     WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6844 OF 2026
                                       IN
                   SECOND APPEAL(ST) NO.23064 OF 2026


Keemaya Build Private Limited                           ..Applicant/Appellant
      Versus
Nitin M. Deshpande & Ors                                      …Respondents

Adv. Karl Tamboli a/w Adv. Himanshu Agarwal & Adv. B. Mohamedi i/by
      Bellator Legal ervices LLP for the Appellant in SA(ST)/22285/2026.
Adv. Vikramjeet Agarwal a/w Adv. Himanshu Agarwal & Adv. Birrul
      Mohamedi i/by Bellator Legal Services LLP for the Appellant in
      SA(ST)/23064/2026.
Adv. Aditi Naikare i/by Adv. Snehal Jadhav, for the Respondent in both
      Appeals.

                                CORAM :        N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                DATE :         30th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:

        Interim Application No.6655 of 2026 in Second Appeal(ST) No.22285

        of 2026:

1.      This is an Application for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the

Appeal against Order dated 2nd April, 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real
PRIYANKA                                 1/5
                                                        902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC

Estate Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.506 of 2025 and

Miscellaneous Application No.507 of 2025.

2.     For the reasons assigned in the Application and to advance the cause of

substantive justice, the delay in preferring the Appeal deserves to be condoned.

3.     The delay stands condoned.

4.     Interim Application stands disposed.

5.     The Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 22285 of 2026 be registered.

       Interim Application No.6842 of 2026 in Second Appeal(ST) No.23064

       of 2026:

6.     This is an Application for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the

Appeal against an Order dated 2nd April, 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real

Estate Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.506 of 2025 and

Miscellaneous Application No.507 of 2025.

7.     For the reasons assigned in the Application and to advance the cause of

substantive justice, the delay in preferring the Appeal deserves to be condoned.

8.     The delay stands condoned.

9.     Interim Application stands disposed.

10.    The Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 23064 of 2026 be registered.

       Second Appeal(ST) No.22285 of 2026 and Second Appeal(ST)

       No.23064 of 2026:

11.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12.    These Second Appeals are directed against an Order dated 2 nd April

2026 in Miscellaneous Application No.506 of 2025 and Miscellaneous

PRIYANKA                                 2/5
                                                          902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC

Application No.507 of 2025 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate

Tribunal ("Appellate Tribunal") whereby, in the Appeals preferred by the

Respondent-Allottee, the Appellate Tribunal has, inter alia, directed the

Appellant-Promoter to handover possession of the subject flats to the Allottees

within a period of 30 days, upon payment of a sum of Rs.1,91,30,673/- to the

Promoter.

13.    The parties are at issue over the amount which the Allottees are liable to

pay to the Promoter. There is also a larger issue as to whether, in an Appeal

preferred by the Allottees against an Order passed by the Authority in an

Application for termination of the contract filed by the Promoter, the Appellate

Tribunal could award interest for the delay in delivery of possession.

14.    The Appellate Tribunal has noted that, even after the payment of the

aforesaid amount of Rs.1,91,30,673/-, the controversy remains over the

Allottees liability to pay a sum of Rs.41,70,138/- and all the issues in connection

therewith would be decided at the stage of final adjudication of the Appeal.

15.    Mr. Karl Tamboli, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that,

the Appellant-Promoter has received the amount of Rs.1,91,30,673/-. However,

the direction to deliver possession of the subject flats, while the amount of

Rs.41,70,138/- remains outstanding, as per the claim of the Promoter, would

leave the promoter in the lurch in the event the Appeal is decided against the

Allottees or the latter simply does not prosecute the Appeal. It was further

submitted that the Allottees also need to be put to terms that they shall not part



PRIYANKA                                  3/5
                                                           902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC

with the possession of, or create third party interest in, the subject flats till the

Appeals are decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

16.    The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that, the Appellate

Tribunal has clarified in the impugned Order itself that, all the issues are kept

open for adjudication at the stage of final adjudication of the Appeal. Therefore,

the interest of the Appellant-Promoter is adequately protected.

17.    Since the controversy between the parties revolves around the liability to

pay the balance amount of Rs.41,70,138/-, as claimed by the Appellant-

Promoter, this Court does not consider it appropriate to entertain the Appeal

under the regime of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Nonetheless, a few protective measures are required to ensure that, in the event

the final outcome is against the Allottees, the Appellant-Promoter is not

presented with a fait accompli. Hence, the following Order:

                                         ORDER

(I)    The Appeals stand disposed subject to the following directions:

       (i)    The Allotees shall file an undertaking before the Appellate

       Tribunal on an affidavit, that in the event the Appeals are decided

       against the Allottees, the Allottees will deposit such amount along with

       interest at such rate as may be directed by the Appellate Tribunal, within

       the stipulated period.

       (ii)   The Allottees shall give prior notice to the Appellant in the event

       the Allottees propose to withdraw the Appeals.



PRIYANKA                                    4/5
                                                      902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC

       (iii)   In any event, the Appellate Tribunal shall not permit the

       withdrawal of the Appeals or dispose of the Appeals for want of

       prosecution, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the

       Appellant-Promoter-Respondent in the Appeals, on the aspect of the

       liability of the Allottees to pay the balance amount as claimed by the

       Appellant-Promoter.


(II)   In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the Interim Applications also

stand disposed.



                                              [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




PRIYANKA                                5/5