P&H HC Sets Aside Dismissal of 12 RERA Appeals Subject to Completion of Statutory Pre-Deposit

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 01.10.2026

P&H HC Sets Aside Dismissal of 12 RERA Appeals Subject to Completion of Statutory Pre-Deposit

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has partly allowed a batch of 12 appeals filed by M/s Sunrays Heights Pvt. Ltd. and set aside orders of the RERA Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed the developer’s appeals solely on the ground that the complete mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 had not been made.

Justice Vikas Bahl directed the developer to deposit the balance amount quantified by the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal on or before 8 May 2026. Subject to compliance with this requirement, the parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 11 May 2026, where the applications for condonation of delay, stay applications and the substantive appeals would be considered afresh on merits.

Importantly, the High Court did not decide the underlying RERA disputes in favour of the developer. Its order restores the opportunity for the appeals and related applications to be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal, subject to completion of the statutory pre-deposit.

Twelve Connected Appeals Involving Common Questions

The High Court dealt with the following 12 appeals together:

• RERA-APPL Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89 and 90 of 2026.
• All the matters involved common questions of law and fact, and RERA-APPL-77-2026, M/s Sunrays Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohinder Kumar, was treated as the lead case on the joint request of counsel.
• The connected respondents included Mohinder Kumar, Sonia Prasad, Anil Kumar Yadav and another, Swadesh Kumar Dwivedi, Kartikeya Kumar Das, Ekta Kumar, Jaykrishan Yadav, Nishant Kumar Singh, Ashish Agarwal, Amit Kumar Anand, Neetu Shekhawat and Ashish Yadav.

Why Had the RERA Appellate Tribunal Dismissed the Appeals?

• The controversy before the High Court was relatively focused.
• The RERA Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeals filed by Sunrays Heights solely because the complete amount required to be deposited under Section 43(5) of RERA had not been deposited.
• Section 43(5) contains the statutory pre-deposit requirement applicable when a promoter approaches the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Authority or Adjudicating Officer.
• Thus, the immediate issue before the High Court was not the substantive merits of the disputes between the promoter and the allottees, but the consequences of the incomplete pre-deposit and whether the promoter should be permitted to make good the deficit and have its appeals reconsidered.

Developer Expresses Readiness to Complete Pre-Deposit

• When the matters came before the High Court on 28 April 2026, senior counsel appearing for Sunrays Heights submitted that the company was ready to make the pre-deposit as quantified by the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal.
• The High Court issued notice and listed the matters urgently for 1 May 2026.
• During those proceedings, counsel for the developer also offered to pay ₹10,000 to each respondent as litigation expenses for the inconvenience caused.
• Similar orders were passed in the other connected appeals.

₹10,000 Litigation Expenses Paid in Each Case

• By the time the matters were taken up for final consideration, Sunrays Heights had brought 12 demand drafts of ₹10,000 each, representing litigation expenses in each of the 12 matters.
• The demand drafts were handed over to counsel for the respective respondents, and receipt was acknowledged before the High Court.
• The developer then requested that the impugned orders be set aside and that the Appellate Tribunal be asked to reconsider the appeals, together with the applications for condonation of delay and stay, in accordance with law.

Allottees Seek Protection of Their Rights on Remand

Counsel appearing for the respondents did not seek to prevent remand as such, but made an important qualification.

They submitted that setting aside the impugned orders and sending the matters back to the Appellate Tribunal should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of:

• the applications seeking condonation of delay;
• the stay applications; or
• the substantive RERA appeals.

The respondents sought liberty to raise all pleas available to them before the Appellate Tribunal.

The High Court ultimately preserved this right in its operative directions.

Sunrays Heights Undertakes to Deposit Deficit Amount

• During the hearing, senior counsel for Sunrays Heights gave an undertaking that the company would deposit the deficit amount as determined in the Registry’s report on or before 8 May 2026.
• The Court recorded that a fair stand had been taken by both sides and proceeded to partly allow the appeals on that basis.

High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Orders Dated 3 December 2025

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 3 December 2025 passed in all 12 appeals.
• However, this relief was accompanied by a clear condition.
• Sunrays Heights was required to deposit the balance amount determined by the Registry so as to comply with Section 43(5) of RERA by 8 May 2026.
• Accordingly, the High Court did not dispense with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. Instead, it gave the promoter an opportunity to make good the deficit and thereby enable reconsideration of its appellate proceedings.

Tribunal to Reconsider Delay, Stay and Main Appeals

• The Court further directed that if Sunrays Heights complied with the pre-deposit requirement, all parties were to appear through counsel before the RERA Appellate Tribunal on 11 May 2026.

The Appellate Tribunal was requested to decide:

• the applications for condonation of delay; the applications for stay; and the substantive appeals, on merits.
• All parties were expressly permitted to raise every plea available to them in accordance with law.

High Court Expressly Leaves Merits Open

• A particularly important qualification in the judgment is that the High Court expressly directed that its order “should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Therefore, the judgment should not be read as:

• a finding that the developer is entitled to succeed in its RERA appeals; a decision granting stay against the underlying orders; a finding that delay in the appeals must necessarily be condoned; or a determination against the respondent-allottees on the substantive disputes.
• Each of those matters remains open for determination by the Appellate Tribunal.

42-Day Delay in High Court Appeal Also Condoned

• In RERA-APPL-77-2026, the High Court separately considered CM-5774-C-2026, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of a 42-day delay in filing the appeal before the High Court.
• For the reasons stated in the application, which was supported by an affidavit, the Court allowed the application and condoned the 42-day delay.
• This condonation should be distinguished from the applications for condonation of delay pending in the proceedings before the RERA Appellate Tribunal. Those applications were not decided by the High Court on merits and were remitted for consideration by the Tribunal.

What Does Section 43(5) Mean in This Case?

• The significance of the order lies in the treatment of the RERA appellate pre-deposit requirement.
• The Appellate Tribunal had dismissed Sunrays Heights’ appeals because the complete amount required under Section 43(5) had not been deposited. The High Court did not hold that the promoter could prosecute the appeals without satisfying that statutory requirement.
• Instead, the relief was structured around the promoter’s undertaking to deposit the remaining deficit.

Thus, the operative sequence under the High Court’s order was:

complete the Section 43(5) pre-deposit by 8 May 2026 → appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 11 May 2026 → Tribunal to independently consider delay, stay and substantive appeals on merits.

Procedural Relief for Sunrays Heights, Not a Final Victory on RERA Merits

• The distinction between procedural and substantive relief is important.
• Sunrays Heights succeeded before the High Court to the extent that the Tribunal’s orders dismissing the 12 appeals were set aside, thereby giving the company an opportunity to complete the pre-deposit and have the proceedings reconsidered.
• But the High Court did not allow the underlying RERA appeals on merits.
• Whether the appeals are maintainable after consideration of delay, whether interim stay should be granted, and whether Sunrays Heights ultimately succeeds against the underlying RERA orders are matters left entirely to the Appellate Tribunal.

Key Takeaway

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order in M/s Sunrays Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohinder Kumar & Connected Matters provides a useful illustration of how an appellate proceeding dismissed for an incomplete Section 43(5) RERA pre-deposit may be restored where the promoter undertakes to make good the deficit and the parties agree to reconsideration by the Tribunal.

At the same time, the Court preserved the statutory pre-deposit requirement itself. Sunrays Heights was required to deposit the balance amount by a fixed deadline, and only upon such compliance would the Appellate Tribunal reconsider the applications for condonation of delay, stay and the main appeals.

The judgment therefore represents a procedural revival of the promoter’s appellate remedies rather than adjudication of the underlying disputes in its favour.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com