Bombay High Court
MAHESH VISHANDAS CHANDWANI AND ANRversusPRESTIGE MULUND REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the order does not raise a substantial question of law and the statutory appeal under Section 100 CPC is the exclusive remedy.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an interim order dated 8 May 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, alleging that the order could be questioned via a writ petition. The court noted that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is the exclusive avenue for challenging such orders. It held that a writ petition is maintainable only if the order raises a substantial question of law, which was not shown in this case. The court emphasized that allowing writs in place of statutory appeals would defeat the purpose of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to file an appeal under the statutory regime if they wish.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an interim order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal when a statutory appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is available.
- Whether the impugned order raises a substantial question of law sufficient to justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim order
- appellate tribunal
- RERA 2016
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- statutory appeal
Judgment
38 wp 11207 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11207 OF 2026
Mahesh Vishandas Chandwani and Anr. ... Petitioners
versus
Prestige Mulund Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Sachin Mandlik with Ms. Yogi Joshi i/by Mandlik and Partners, for
Petitioners.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 5 OCTOBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an interim order dated 8 May 2026
passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
3. The Petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against
the said order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,
subject to the regime of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the Petition
arises out of an interim order and may not raise a substantial question of law,
the remedy by way of writ petition can be legitimately invoked.
5. The submission does not merit countenance. The Parliament has
designedly put restrictions on the assailability of the orders passed by the
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal; final or interlocutory, by conferring appellate
SSP 1/2
38 wp 11207 of 2026.doc
jurisdiction at par with Section 100 of the code, 1908. If the challenge to an
order does not raise a substantial question of law, the matter must rest. It can
neither be agitated in appeal nor in a writ petition.
6. Entertaining the writ petition against an order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal, despite the availabiity of statutory remedy of appeal, except in cases
where the writ is filed under the well recognized exceptions carved out by
judicial precedents, and reiterated in Whirlpool Corporation V/s. Registrar
of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors.,1 would open the floodgates and defeat
the object of RERA 2016.
7. Thus, the Writ Petition stands disposed with liberty to the Petitioners to
file an appeal against the impugned order, if desired.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
Digitally
signed by
SWAROOP
SWAROOP SHARAD
SHARAD PHADKE
PHADKE Date:
2026.10.07
19:58:01
+0530
1 1998(8) SCC 1
SSP 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.