Bombay High Court

Ms Amit Enterprises Housing LtdversusMr Abhishek Shirish Bhise

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The appeal does not raise a substantial question of law and is dismissed under Section 100 of the CPC.

Summary

M/s Amit Enterprises Housing Ltd appealed against an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directing it to deposit the full amount ordered by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The appellant argued that any interest payable under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 should be set off against an outstanding amount due from the allottee, and therefore no deposit was required. The Tribunal’s order included a clause allowing such set‑off, but the High Court found that the dispute was purely factual and did not raise a substantial question of law. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal could not be entertained under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second appeal was dismissed, and the related interim application was also disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is required to deposit the amount ordered by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority despite the set‑off provision.
Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law warranting consideration under Section 100 of the CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 — s. 18

Subjects

RERA
interest
set‑off
deposit
real estate appellate tribunal
civil appeal
Section 100 CPC
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Judgment

                                                                     14-SA163-2026+.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     SECOND APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2026
                                                  WITH
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2505 OF 2026

                      M/s. Amit Enterprises Housing Ltd                    ...Appellant
                                        Versus
                      Abhishek Shirish Bhise and anr.                 …Respondents

SANTOSH
SUBHASH               Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay, for the Applicant – Appellant.
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                             CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Date: 2026.04.10
11:22:23 +0530
                                                     DATED:     8th APRIL, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.


                      2.    The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 27 th

                      February, 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate

                      Appellate Tribunal, thereby directing the appellant to deposit

                      the entire amount as ordered to be paid by the Maharashtra

                      Real Estate Regulatory Authority.


                      3.    Mr. Thipsay, the learned Counsel for the appellant,

                      submitted that the appellant was not required to deposit any

                      amount as there was an outstanding amount to be paid by the

                      allottee.




                                                    1/3
                                                     14-SA163-2026+.DOC

4.   Mr. Thipsay invited the attention of the Court to the order

passed by the Authority, especially clause (c) of the operative

order, which, inter alia, records that the total arrears of interest

shall be set off/adjusted against the outstanding amount, if any,

to be paid by the respondent towards the cost of the subject Dat

and the remaining amount shall be paid by the respondent in

one installment to the complainant.          Clinging to the words, if

any, it was submitted that the appellant was not required to

make any deposit. It was further submitted that the submission

made on behalf of the appellant on 20 th January, 2026 before

the Appellate Tribunal seeking extension of time to make the

deposit,     was   due   to   inadvertence    and,   subsequently,   a

compliance afFdavit was Fled on behalf of the appellant

indicating that there was no amount due and payable by the

appellant.


5.   The possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the

allottee by December, 2021.             The appellant obtained the

Occupation CertiFcate on 22nd August, 2025.


6.   The Authority has categorically held that the appellant

was required to pay interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA, 2016”). The

controversy sought to be raised by the appellant regarding the

                                  2/3
                                                 14-SA163-2026+.DOC

amount due and payable by the appellant essentially revolves

around facts. Thus no substantial question of law arises for

consideration. Therefore, the appeal does not deserve to be

entertained under the regime of Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.


7.    Second Appeal thus stands dismissed.


8.    In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, Interim

Application No.2505/2026 also stands disposed.


9.    Mr. Thipsay further submitted that, subsequent to the

impugned order, the appeal itself came to be dismissed for non-

compliance of the order of pre-deposit and said order has also

been assailed in a separate appeal. SufFce to clarity, the legality

and corrections of the said order may be considered in the said

appeal.


10.   The said appeal be listed in the next week.



                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…