Bombay High Court
Agile Real Estate Pvt LtdversusAmit Dabke
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court stayed the execution of the Appellate Tribunal's order, subject to the appellant depositing the entire differential amount in the Court.
Summary
Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directing it to deposit a differential amount of interest under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The High Court of Bombay listed the appeals for final disposal and framed a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's power to direct such deposits only up to the date specified by the Authority or Adjudicating Officer. The Court noted that failure to deposit the amount could lead to dismissal of the appeals before the Tribunal. Given the limited monetary significance and the need to balance equities, the Court stayed the execution of the Tribunal's order. The stay is conditioned upon the appellant depositing the entire differential amount in the High Court within four weeks. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal may continue hearing the appeals in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal is empowered to direct the promoter to deposit the total amount, including interest and compensation, only up to the date determined by the Authority or Adjudicating Officer under Section 43(5) of RERA 2016.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- RERA
- real estate
- appellate tribunal
- stay of order
- interest
- differential amount
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
-SA440-2026+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7075 OF 2026
Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Ramyagya Tiwari & anr. …Respondents
SANTOSH
WITH
SUBHASH SECOND APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2026
KULKARNI
WITH
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7116 OF 2026
Date: 2026.09.30
17:27:19 +0530
Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Amit Dabke & anr. …Respondents
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7117 OF 2026
Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sagar Prakash Dudhande & anr. …Respondents
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7118 OF 2026
Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Amit Dabke & anr. …Respondents
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Suneet Tyagi, Ms. Pavitra Pillay,
Ms. Rajvi Choksi, i/b Mr. Aniket Deshmukh, for the
Appellant/Applicant.
1/4
-SA440-2026+.DOC
Mr. Vinod Talreja, a/w Mr. Avinash Undhare, i/b Gobindram D
Talreja, for the Respondents.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PC:-
SA/440/2026, SA/441/2026, SA/442/2026 and SA/443/2026
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. These appeals are directed against a common order dated
20th August, 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal (“the Appellate Tribunal”), thereby directing
the appellant to deposit the differential amount of interest,
towards full compliance of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of
Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 (“RERA 2016”).
3. The appeals are admitted on the following substantial
question of law:
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to
direct the promoter to deposit the total amount to be
directed to be paid to the allottee, including interest and
compensation, by the Authority or Adjudicating Officer,
only up to the date determined by the Authority or
Adjudicating Officer, where such date is expressly specified
2/4
-SA440-2026+.DOC
by the Authority or Adjudicating Officer, or the amount so
determined alongwith the interest at the rate stipulated by
the Authority or Adjudicating Officer, up to the date of
deposit of the amount before the Appellate Tribunal?
4. Having regard to the limited nature of the controversy, the
appeals be listed for hearing and final disposal on 28 th October,
2026.
5. In the meanwhile, the appellant shall file private paper-
book.
IA/7075/2026, IA/7116/2026, IA/7117/2026 and IA/7118/2026
6. By a separate order, this Court has framed substantial
question of law on which the appeals are required to be heard.
7. There is an apprehension that the failure to deposit the
differential amount, directed to be deposited by the Appellate
Tribunal, may entail the consequence of the dismissal of the
appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
8. Though the substantial question of law framed by this
Court appears to have general significance, yet, as the impugned
order directs deposit of the differential amount, which is not
very substantial in the context of the project, which the
appellant is developing, this Court considers it expedient to stay
3/4
-SA440-2026+.DOC
the effect and operation of the impugned order, subject to
deposit of the entire differential amount in this Court so that
the Court would be equipped to balance the equities between
the parties, depending upon the outcome of these appeals.
9. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The applications stand allowed.
(ii) There shall be stay to the execution, operation, and
implementation of the impugned order subject to deposit
of the entire amount directed to be deposited by the
Appellate Tribunal in each of the appeals, before this
Court within a period of four weeks.
(iii) Upon deposit of the said amount, the Appellate Tribunal
may proceed with the hearing of the appeals, in
accordance with law.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.