Bombay High Court
Veena Realcon Private LimitedversusNARENDRA RAMCHAND OCHANl
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court condoned the 38‑day delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The appellant filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 38‑day delay in filing an appeal against a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order dated 6 May 2026. The appellant explained that the delay resulted from the sudden resignation of the employee handling the case, which required time to collect documents and prepare the appeal. The respondents opposed the condonation, arguing that the reasons given did not constitute sufficient cause. The court examined the averments, held that the reasons were not unsustainable and that the delay was not inordinate, emphasizing that courts favor substantive justice over procedural technicalities. Consequently, the court allowed the interim application, condoned the delay, and ordered the appellant to deposit Rs 1.75 crore as interim security pending further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a 38‑day delay in filing an appeal can be condoned under procedural law
- Whether the reasons cited for the delay constitute sufficient cause for condonation
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- procedural law
- substantive justice
- real estate
- refund
- interest
- interim relief
Judgment
22 IA 7067 OF 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7067 OF 2026
IN
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.24508 OF 2026
Veena Realcon Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant/Appellant
versus
Narendra Ramchand Ochani and Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Aditya Misquitta, Mr. Viraj Jadhav, Ms. Disha Jain,
Ms. Nishita Bhuta, for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Samarth Chaudhary with Mr. Niket Jani, Ms. Nandika Seth i/by Jani and
Parikh, for Respondents.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 7 OCTOBER 2026
SWAROOP
SHARAD
P.C.
PHADKE
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Digitally signed by
SWAROOP
SHARAD PHADKE
Date: 2026.10.07
20:48:59 +0530
2. This is an application for condonation of 38 days delay in filing the
appeal against the order dated 6 May 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.63823 of 2022.
3. Respondents – allottees have opposed the prayer for condonation of
delay. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the reasons
ascribed in the application for condonation of delay do not make out a
sufficient cause.
4. I have perused the averments in the application. One of the reasons
ascribed in the application is that the employee who was entrusted with the
SSP 1/3
22 IA 7067 OF 2026.doc
legal proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal had suddenly left the
employment with the Appellant, and, therefore, time was consumed in
collecting the documents and making preparations to file an appeal. The
reasons ascribed in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the application cannot be said
to be unsustainable.
5. In any event, the period of delay is not inordinate. It is trite that the
courts lean in favour of condonation of delay so as to advance the cause of
substantive justice which is promoted by the determination of the lis on merits
rather than on technicalities.
6. For the foregoing reasons and to advance the cause of substantive
justice, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in preferring the appeal.
7. Interim Application stands allowed.
8. Delay in preferring the appeal stands condoned.
9. Interim Application stands disposed.
Second Appeal (ST) No.24508 of 2026 & IA No.7068 of 2026
10. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 6 May 2026 passed by
the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Appellate
Tribunal has modified the order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate
Regulatory Authority and directed the Appellant – promoter to refund the
consideration amount paid by the Respondents – allottees along with the
interest at the specified rate from the date of the respective payment till the
SSP 2/3
22 IA 7067 OF 2026.doc
payment and/or realization.
11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant – Promoter seeks time to consider
the affidavit in reply and file an affidavit in rejoinder. The learned Counsel for
the Appellant, seeks interim protection as the Appellate Tribunal has posted
the execution application tomorrow.
12. Since the impugned order directs the Appellant – Promoter to refund
the amount along with interest the interest of the Respondents – allottees is
required to be secured.
13. The Appellant – Promoter shall, thus, deposit a sum of Rs.1.75 Crores
before the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of four weeks.
14. Subject to the deposit of the aforesaid amount before the Appellate
Tribunal within a period of four weeks, there shall be an ad-interim relief in
terms of prayer clause (a) of IA No.7068 of 2026.
15. In the event, the said amount is deposited, the Respondents are at
liberty to apply for the release of the said amount, before the Appellate
Tribunal.
16. Post the Second Appeal and the Interim Application on 4 November
2026.
17. In the meanwhile, the appellant is at liberty to file an affidavit-in-
rejoinder and serve its copy on the respondent.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.