#Real Estate Dispute

The Bombay High Court has ruled that developers cannot bypass MahaRERA’s statutory appeal mechanism by filing writ petitions challenging recovery orders under Section 40 of RERA. This reinforces that specialized tribunals like RERA are the exclusive forum for resolving real estate disputes, preserving legislative intent and preventing forum shopping by promoters.

Chandigarh State Consumer Commission rules that investors in commercial property for assured returns do not qualify as 'consumers' under the CPA 2019, dismissing complaints for lack of maintainability. The decision clarifies that investment intent, not personal use, determines consumer status in real estate disputes.

The NCDRC ruled that taking advance payments for a non-existent real estate project, while repeatedly acknowledging liability through emails, amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. A refund of ₹48 lakh with 9% interest is mandated, rejecting the builder’s attempt to disguise payments as voluntary donations. This sets a critical precedent for senior citizens and investors duped by phantom projects.

NCDRC affirmed compensation at ₹2,499/sq.ft. for unfulfilled plot allotment, rejecting the developer's reliance on outdated government rates. The ruling reinforces that developers cannot evade liability by selling disputed plots to third parties during litigation, ensuring consumers receive fair market value for deficiency in service.