MR. MUKESH CHAMDIAversusEKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED

2026:BHC-AS:36449

                                                                          24 sa 412 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 SECOND APPEAL NO.412 OF 2026
                                             WITH
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6638 OF 2026

            Mukesh Chamdia                                    ...   Appellant
                  versus
            Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt. Ltd.                    …     Respondent

            Mr. Tanuj Lodha with Ms. Vidhi Mehta, Ms. Clarisa D’Souza, Ms. Treya
            Chheda i/by Lodha and Lodha Advocates,for Appellant.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      2 SEPTEMBER 2026

            ORAL ORDER :

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

            2.      The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 23 March 2026

            passed in Misc. Application No.325 of 2025, whereby the Maharashtra Real

            Estate Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application preferred by the

            Appellant to direct the Promoter to deliver possession of the subject

            apartment to the Appellant – allottee.

            3.      The Tribunal was of the view that the Appellant – allottee has neither

            paid the balance consideration amount, nor shown willingness to pay to the

            promoter or deposit interest amount on account of delay in payment in the

            Registry of the Tribunal, without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be

            raised by the Appellant in the appeal preferred before the Tribunal against the



            SSP                                                                 1/3
                                                               24 sa 412 of 2026.doc

order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 24

February 2025, thereby rejecting the claim of the Appellant for interest on

account of delay in delivery of the possession of the subject apartment, under

Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

4.      Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellate Tribunal

has incorrectly recorded that the Appellant has not shown willingness to pay

the balance consideration or deposit the amount in the Tribunal.

5.      If that is the case, the remedy of the Appellant is to move the Appellate

Tribunal and point out the purported mistake in the record. A useful reference

in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of State of Maharashtra V/s. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak1.

6.      Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant

is willing to make payment to the Promoter, provided the Promoter agrees to

deliver possession of the subject apartment.

7.      It seems that the core controversy between the parties revolves around

the exact amount which the Appellant is obligated to pay to the Promoter

towards the balance consideration and the interest, if any, thereon, in

accordance with the terms of the contract or the amount which the Promoter

is liable to pay to the Appellant – allottee on the amount of consideration

already parted with by the allottee, for the delay in delivery of possession of


1    AIR 1982 SC 1249

SSP                                                                 2/3
                                                                                     24 sa 412 of 2026.doc

                      the subject apartment, as envisaged by the provisions contained in Section 18

                      of the Act, 2016.

                      8.       In these circumstances, having regard to the limited nature of the

                      controversy, this Court is of the view that the substantive appeal which is

                      pending before the Appellate Tribunal be decided as expeditiously as

                      possible, so that the entire controversy can be put to rest.

                      9.       For the foregoing reasons, the Second Appeal stands disposed with a

                      request to the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide Appeal No.AT06/00336

                      of 2025, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four

                      months from the date of communication of this order.

                      10.      Interim Application No.6638 of 2026 also stands disposed.




                                                                         ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                  3/3



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/09/2026 10:31:54