AURANGBAD HOLIDAY RESORTS PUNE- 411011versusRAHUL GANPATRAO NARAWADE AND ANR

                    Sonali Mane                                              7-SA-713-2022.docx



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          SECOND APPEAL NO. 713 OF 2022
                                                       WITH
                                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19809 OF 2022
                                                         IN
                                          SECOND APPEAL NO. 713 OF 2022


                    Aurangbad Holiday Resorts Pune- 411011                  … Appellant
                             Versus

                    Rahul Ganpatrao Narawade And Anr                        … Respondents



                    Mr. Mustafa Kachwala a/w Ms. S. Shetty, Ms. Sakshi S. i/b Kachwala
                    Misar & Co. for Appellant/Applicant in IA/19809/2022.
                    Mr. Amol A. Deshpande for Respondents.



                                                     CORAM        : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                     DATE         : 1 OCTOBER 2026.

                    P.C. :


                    1)            The Appeal challenges Order dated 17 June 2019 passed by
                    the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai directing
                    the Appellant to pay to the allottees simple interest at the rate of
                    10.75% per annum on amount of Rs.79,21,148/- from 16 February 2016
                    till the date of handing over of possession of the flat. The Regulatory
                    authority has also awarded costs of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the
                    allottees. The order passed by the Regulatory Authority has been
                    confirmed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
                    by dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Appellant.
        Digitally
        signed by
        MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP  Date:
       2026.10.03
                                                  ___Page No.1 of 4___
        11:04:15
        +0530
                                                     1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                    7-SA-713-2022.docx



2)            I have heard Mr. Kachwala, the learned counsel appearing for
Appellant and Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)            The allottees booked Flat No. 1004 in the project "Jubilee
Park" at village Warje, Pune (taken up for construction by the
Appellant) for a total consideration of Rs.83,38,050/-. Under the
Agreement for Sale, the possession of the flat was to be handed over
within 12 months i.e. 15 February 2016. According to the Appellant, the
Environment         Department      issued     stop-work    notice    under         a
misconception that the project requires environmental clearance. By
Circular dated 21 April 2015, the Government of Maharashtra clarified
that construction on land admeasuring less than 20,000 sq. mtrs. is not
to be treated as violation of the EIA Notification, 2006. According to
Appellant by 10 June 2015, it had completed 95% of the project.
According to Appellant, further construction could not be completed on
account of non grant of environmental clearance. Appellant relies on
order passed by National Green Tribunal dated 5 November 2024 in
support of its contention that, since the project is below 20,000
sq.mtrs.,      it   does   not   require     prior   environmental   clearance.
Nonetheless, the Appellant has obtained environmental clearance for
the project from the competent authority on 8 July 2025. The Appellant
has also secured Consent to Operate from Maharashtra Pollution
Control Board for the proposed extended project on 23 March 2026. It
is, therefore contended on behalf of the Appellant that completion of
the project is delayed for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant.




                                 ___Page No.2 of 4___
                                    1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                              7-SA-713-2022.docx



4)            The Provisions of Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) imposes an unqualified obligation
on the promotor to pay interest for every month of delay to the
allottee, who does not intend to withdraw from the project. In the
present case, the allottees are not intending to withdraw from the
project. They have paid substantial consideration of Rs.79,21,148/- out
of agreed consideration of Rs.83,38,050/-. Despite the passage of more
than 11 years, the allottees are still awaiting possession of their flat. So
far as unqualified and absolute obligation of promotor to pay interest
to the allottee under Section 18 of the RERA Act, recently this Court in
Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Vs. Nitin Madhukar Shewale
and Ors.1 has held in paragraph 28 and 33 of the judgment as under:


              28.        A plain reading of Section 18(1) of RERA would indicate that
              promoter has an obligation to return the amount received by him
              alongwith interest on demand by the allottee. Section 18(1) of RERA
              does not leave any option or discretion about the timeline at which
              refund is to be made. Once the promoter fails to complete the project or
              is unable to give possession of the apartment within the timeline agreed,
              allottee has a right to demand refund of amount paid by him, and the
              promoter has an obligation to fulfill that demand by refunding the
              amount received by him alongwith interest immediately on making such
              demand. In that sense, there is an unqualified right created in favour of
              the allottee to seek the refund under Section 18(1) of RERA.

              33.        Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that
              what is observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in
              Newtech Promoters (supra) is a mere obiter. The Apex Court in Newtech
              Promoters lays down a law that there is a priority, immediacy and
              expediency accorded to the right of the allottee to seek refund. The Apex
              Court has interpreted the expression “on demand” appearing in Section
              18(1) of RERA. Therefore, observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
              paragraph 24 of the judgment are also required to be read in conjunction
              with the findings recorded in paragraphs 71, 72 and 74 of the judgment.
              Merely because the findings in paragraph 24 precede the formulation of
              questions/issues in paragraph 30, it would be erroneous to assume that
              the observations made in paragraph 24 are mere obiter. The Apex Court
              has declared a law in Newtech Promoters (supra) that an allottee has an

1    Second Appeal (st) No. 8825 of 2025 decided on 28 September 2026.

                                    ___Page No.3 of 4___
                                       1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                          7-SA-713-2022.docx



              unqualified right to seek refund under Section 18(1) of RERA and if the
              promoter fails to give possession of the apartment within time stipulated
              under the terms of agreement, regardless of unforeseen events or stay
              orders of Court/Tribunal (not attributable to the allottee), the promoter
              is under obligation to refund the amount on demand with interest.



5)            Thus, the right of the allottee to receive interest in respect of
delay period under Section 18 is absolute and unqualified. If there are
any mitigating circumstances in favour of the promotor, the same may
assist the promotor in defending action for compensation. So far as
payment of interest for delayed period is concerned, the same is bare
minimum that a promotor must pay to the allottee under Section 18 of
the RERA Act.



6)            In view of the above discussion, I do not find any valid ground
to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Regulatory Authority
and the Appellate Tribunal. No substantial question of law is involved
in the Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal
of the Appeal, nothing survives in the Interim Application and the
same stands disposed of.



7)            After the order is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant prays for continuation of ad-interim relief granted by
order dated 20 March 2023. The request is opposed by the learned
counsel appearing for allottees. Considering the nature of findings
recorded while dismissing the Second Appeal, I am not inclined to
continue the ad-interim relief in favour of the Appellant. The request is
accordingly rejected.


                                                          [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

                                   ___Page No.4 of 4___
                                      1 October, 2026