Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.'s (AREPL) request to excuse the delay in appealing a MahaRERA order was denied by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) earlier this week. The original directive required AREPL to pay interest to homebuyers of the 'Immensa D' project in Thane for delayed possession. MREAT found that AREPL failed to act diligently, noting the significant gap between obtaining the certified order and filing the appeal. The tribunal dismissed AREPL's justification of a medical emergency affecting their advocate, stating that the promoter had sufficient resources to seek alternative legal assistance within the prescribed period.
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) rejected Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.'s (AREPL) applications earlier this week, requesting a pardon for the delay in appealing a Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) directive. The original order mandated AREPL to compensate homebuyers of the 'Immensa D' project in Thane with interest due to delays in handing over possession. Advertisement
MREAT's bench, comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant Deshpande, observed that AREPL failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the MahaRERA order between July 29 and August 12, a period when the previous online system was still operational. The tribunal further noted that although AREPL obtained the certified copy on September 23, 2024, it did not file the appeal until January 2025, indicating a lack of diligence in safeguarding its legal rights.
AREPL attributed the delay to a medical emergency involving the family member of their advocate. However, MREAT highlighted that the promoter possessed ample resources to engage alternate legal counsel within the stipulated timeframe, a step that was eventually taken. The tribunal emphasized that the responsibility to act promptly rested with the promoter, regardless of unforeseen circumstances affecting their legal representation.
The case pertains to MahaRERA's earlier directive, which ordered AREPL to pay interest to homebuyers due to the delayed possession of units in the 'Immensa D' project in Thane. MahaRERA's order was based on complaints filed by multiple aggrieved homebuyers who alleged that the developer failed to deliver the promised units within the agreed timeframe.
AREPL's legal counsel argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a medical emergency affecting the advocate's family. Despite this claim, the tribunal determined that the developer had sufficient time to arrange for alternative legal representation and that the explanation was inadequate to justify the extensive delay.
MREAT's ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in real estate disputes, particularly in cases involving compensation to homebuyers. The tribunal reaffirmed its commitment to enforcing regulatory mandates and ensuring that developers uphold their obligations towards purchasers.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
