M/S DRUSHTI DEVELOPERS THROUGH THEIR PARTNERSversusMRS. NEHA SWAPNIL KHAMKAR ALIAS NEHA UTTAM JAMDADE

                                                                       5-SA116-2026+.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    SECOND APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2026
                                                WITH
                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1644 OF 2026

                      M/s. Drushti Developers and Ors.                    ...Appellants
                                       Versus
                      Neha Swapnil Khamkar @ Neha Uttam
                      Jamdade and Ors.                                 …Respondents
                      Ms. Kshema S. Mahuli, for Appellants-Applicants.

                                                      CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                      DATED:     18th MARCH, 2026
                      Order:-

                      1.   This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated

                      13th November, 2025, passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate

                      Appellate Tribunal (“the Appellate Tribunal”) whereby the

                      appeal, being Appeal No.53331/2021, preferred by respondent

                      No.1 – allottee, came to be partly allowed by modifying the order

                      dated 16th June, 2021, passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate

         Digitally
         signed by
                      Regulatory Authority (“the Authority”) in the complaint Eled by
         SANTOSH
SANTOSH SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
         2026.04.01
                      the allottee against the appellants – promoters, and others.
         10:05:20
         +0530



                      2.   By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has

                      directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-,

                      alongwith interest at the rate of the State Bank of India’s

                      Marginal Cost of Lending Rate plus 2%, from 29 th August, 2009


                                                     1/8
                                                 5-SA116-2026+.DOC

till the realization of the entire amount to the allottee and

granted liberty to the allottee to Ele a complaint before the

Adjudicating OfEcer for compensation, if the allottee desired to.


3.   Appellant No.1 is a registered partnership Erm. Appellant

Nos.2 to 14 are the partners of Appellant No.1. The appellant No.

1 Erm promoted a project known as “Gloria,” situated on land

bearing Survey No.29 situated at village Katraj, Taluka Haveli,

District Pune.


4.   In the year, 2009, Respondent No.1 allottee was induced to

book a Jat admeasuring 600 sq. ft. in the said project for a

consideration of Rs.7,50,000. The allottee paid the said amount

in cash to Babaji Jadhav (R2), the then partner of Appellant

No.1 Erm. A receipt dated 28 th August, 2009 acknowledging the

said payment was issued on behalf of the Appellants. In

addition, an unregistered Agreement for Sale was executed by

the Erm in favour of the allottee on 28 th August, 2009. It was,

inter alia, agreed that the possession of the subject Jat would

be delivered to the allottee within a period of 18 months from

the date of sanction of the plan. To secure the interest of the

allottee, Appellant No.1 had delivered a cheque in the sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- to the allottee, to address the situation that

might arise if the Agreement for Sale was terminated.

                               2/8
                                                 5-SA116-2026+.DOC

5.   The allottee approached MahaRERA as the Appellant No.1

and its partners did not execute a registered agreement and

discharge their obligations.


6.   After appraisal of the rival pleadings and the material on

record, by an order dated 16th June, 2021, the Authority was

persuaded to dispose the complaint, Ending no merit in the

claim raised by the complainant-allottee. Liberty was however

granted to the allottee to take appropriate action against Babaji

Jadhav (R2) for speciEc performance of the agreement dated 29 th

August, 2009. It was, inter alia, noted that the said unregistered

Agreement for Sale was executed by Babaji Jadhav (R2), whose

authority to execute the same was denied by Appellant No.1. It

was further noted that no speciEc Jat number was mentioned in

the said Agreement for Sale and, thus, the allottee was not

entitled to seek any relief pursuant to such vague allotment of

the Jat.


7.   Being aggrieved, the allottee preferred an appeal, being

Appeal No.53331/2021, before the Appellate Tribunal.


8.   By the impugned order the Appellate Tribunal was

persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Authority

recording that the Appellants had not speciEcally denied the

factum of execution of the unregistered Agreement for Sale and
                               3/8
                                                5-SA116-2026+.DOC

the issuance of receipt by Babaji Jadhav (R2), on behalf of the

partnership Erm, and had instead claimed that Babaji Jadhav

(R2) did not disclose the said transaction to the appellants. The

Appellate Tribunal returned a Ending that there was indeed an

Agreement for Sale of the subject property by and between

Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.1. Since the plans were yet

not sanctioned by the concerned Planning Authority, the

absence of a Jat number in the Agreement for Sale did not

detract materially from the claim of the allottee. Holding that

Babaji Jadhav (R2) had the implied authority to bind Appellant

No.1 Erm,      the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and

directed the Appellants to pay Rs.15,00,000/- with interest from

29th August, 2009, as Babaji Jadhav (R2) had drawn a cheque

in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the allottee to secure the

interest of the allottee in the event of non-fulEllment of the

obligation by the Appellants.


9.    Being aggrieved, the appellants-promoters have preferred

this appeal.


10.   I have heard Ms. Kshema Mahuli, the learned Counsel for

the appellants.


11.   It was submitted that the transaction was between the

allottee and Babaji Jadhav (R2) in the latter’s individual
                                4/8
                                                       5-SA116-2026+.DOC

capacity. The amount allegedly paid in cash by the allottee to

Babaji Jadhav (R2) was never credited to the account of

Appellant No.1 Erm. Thus, Appellate No.1 Erm and its partners

could not have been fastened with the liability to refund the

amount. In any event, Ms. Mahuli would urge, the transaction

was allegedly in cash. There was no independent proof of credit

of the said amount to the account of Erm. Even, the Agreement

for Sale was as vague as it could be. The basic particulars,

including even the Jat number, were not mentioned in the said

Agreement for Sale. In such circumstances, the Authority was

justiEed in dismissing the complaint Eled by the allottee. The

Appellate Tribunal, according to Ms. Mahuli, committed a

jurisdictional error in overturning the Endings of the Authority

and granting the relief which was not prayed for by Respondent

No.1. The Appellant had sought the relief of speciEc performance

of the said agreement. There was no prayer for refund of the

amount. Yet, the Appellate Tribunal, directed refund of the said

amount alongwith interest.


12.   None of the aforesaid submissions carry any substance.

The execution of the Agreement for Sale and             passing of the

receipt   by   Babaji   Jadhav   (R2)   are   rather     incontestable.

Incontrovertibly Babaji Jadhav (R2) was the partner of Appellant

                                 5/8
                                                 5-SA116-2026+.DOC

No.1 Erm at the time of the transaction. At best, the defence of

the appellant is that Babaji Jadhav (R2) had not disclosed the

said transaction between the appellant and respondent No.2.

Therefore, the appellants cannot be fastened with the liability to

refund the amount.


13.   I End it difEcult to accede to the aforesaid submission.

Once, the relationship between Appellant No.1 Erm and Babaji

Jadhav (R2) is admitted, the authority of Babaji Jadhav (R2) to

bind the Erm can hardly put in contest. It is not the case that,

on the basis of only one document, the allottee had claimed the

reliefs under the RERA 2016. Babaji Jadhav (R2) had passed

receipt in acknowledgment of cash of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the

allottee. Secondly, an Agreement for Sale was executed which

also vouches for the said transaction. Thirdly, and most

importantly, Babaji Jadhav (R2) had issued a post-dated cheque

in favour of the allottee in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to secure

the interest of the allottee in the event of delay and default on

the part of the Appellant No. 1 to deliver the possession of the

subject Jat. Pertinently, the said cheque was drawn in the

capacity of partner of the Appellant No. 1 Erm and on an

account maintained by Appellant No.1 Erm.       Cumulatively, as

rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal, there was adequate

                               6/8
                                                  5-SA116-2026+.DOC

material to hold that the Appellant No. 1 had entered into an

Agreement for Sale of the subject Jat in favour of Respondent

No.1.


14.     The learned Member, Regulatory Authority, was clearly in

error in non-suiting Respondent No.1-complainant on the

ground that the Agreement for Sale did not contain the number

and description of the subject Jat. The Appellate Tribunal was

well within its right in holding that the absence of Jat number

in the Agreement of Sale did not detract materially from the

claim of the allottee. Since the plans were yet to be sanctioned

by the Planning Authority, the stipulations in the Agreement for

Sale were adequate to describe the property agreed to be sold by

the Appellant No. 1 to Respondent No.1. As the project was

completed and completion certiEcate was obtained and all the

co-buyers were put in possession of the respective Jats, the

relief of execution of Deed of Conveyance in favour of the allottee

-Respondent No. 1 could not have been granted. Thus, by

resorting to the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 33 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly

moulded the relief to direct the refund of the amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest.




                               7/8
                                                   5-SA116-2026+.DOC

15.    Having completed the project and sold all the units

therein, the appellants cannot be heard to urge that a direction

for refund of amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest,

operates onerously qua the appellants especially in the face of

the material on record to show that Babaji Jadhav (R2) had, in

fact, acknowledged the consideration and issued a cheque in

favour of the allottee for and on behalf of Appellant No.1 Erm.


16.    In the totality of the circumstances, this Court does not

End any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or legal inErmity in

the impugned order so as to give rise to any substantial

question of law. Neither the evidence and the documents were

misconstrued nor the Appellate Tribunal has committed any

error in passing the impugned order.      Resultantly, the appeal

deserves to be dismissed.


17.    Hence, the following order:


                            :ORDER:


(i)    The appeal stands dismissed.


(ii)   In view of the dismissal of the appeal IA/1644/2026 also

stands disposed.




                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
                                8/8