Delay Doesn't Cut It: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Slams Agile Real Estate's Plea

Delay Doesn't Cut It: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Slams Agile Real Estate's Plea

Introduction

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai heard several miscellaneous applications related to delays in filing appeals by Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., part of the Kalpataru Group and rejected the applications.

Factual Background

Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. had filed appeals against an order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MAHA RERA) on August 12, 2024. The authority had allowed allottees' complaints and directed Agile Real Estate to pay compensation. Agile Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals against an order by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

Procedural Background

The applicant attempted to file an online application for a certified copy of the impugned order on the MahaRERA portal shortly after the order was issued. However, according to the conditions set forth in MahaRERA order no. 58 of 2024 dated 07.08.2024, the applicant was unable to upload their online application to the MahaRERA portal and, therefore, was unable to obtain a certified copy of the contested order. Furthermore, the applicant explained the delay by citing a medical emergency affecting their advocate and technical problems with the MahaRERA system. The appeals were filed 66–69 days later than expected.

Issues Involved

1. Condonation of Delay: Whether the applicant has established that it had sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the period of limitation?

2. Justification for Delay: Whether the issues with the MahaRERA portal and the medical emergency justified the delay of 66-69 days.

Contentions of the Parties

Agile Real Estate's Contentions: The applicant cited technical issues with the MahaRERA portal and a medical emergency involving their advocate as reasons for the delay.

Allottees' Contentions:  No specific contentions were presented.

Reasoning and Analysis

The tribunal observed that the appeals could have been filed with a simple copy of the order and that the issues with the MahaRERA portal did not entirely justify the delay. It also stated that Agile Real Estate could have engaged a new advocate sooner. The applicant has failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Moreover, the tribunal observed that for the purpose of filing the appeals there was no need for certified copy and online appeal could have been filed on simple copy of the order with an undertaking to produce to the registry certified copy as soon as possible. The tribunal observed that the applicant/promoter is not able to construct 8 towers in 9 years whereas a competitor construction company constructed about 50 towers in 3 years. It was submitted that the company blamed 17 problems but refused to admit that it is incompetent and inefficient.

Final Decision

The tribunal presided by a bench of Chaiperson SS Shinde and Member Shrikant Deshpande held that it is not in dispute that the impugned order came to be passed on 29.07.2024. It was held by the tribunal that it may not be necessary to file the certified copy of the impugned order while filing the appeal. Since the same could have been done by submitting the appeal with simple copy of the impugned order under Section 44 (2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with an undertaking to submit the certified copy as soon as possible. As a result, the tribunal rejected the delay condonation application.The decision was pronounced on 9th May, 2025.

Law Settled

The tribunal referenced guidelines from the Supreme Court on considering applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach focused on justice. The decision Empowers homebuyers to challenge unfair practices with greater confidence.

In this case the Home buyers were represented by team Talreja & Associates led by Vinod Talreja, Advocate. Meanwhile, the applicant was represented by Mr. Suneet Tyagi, Advocate.