P&H HC: RERA Appellate Tribunal Cannot Ignore Material Clauses of Flat Buyer’s Agreement

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

Date: 07.10.2026

P&H HC: RERA Appellate Tribunal Cannot Ignore Material Clauses of Flat Buyer’s Agreement

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has partly allowed a batch of six RERA appeals involving Signatureglobal (India) Limited and Sternal Buildcon Private Limited, remanding the matters to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration in line with its earlier ruling in M/s Signature Global (India) Limited v. Praveen Kumar Gupta.

The Court reiterated the importance of examining the Flat Buyer’s Agreement, contractual possession timeline and force majeure provisions while adjudicating disputes concerning delay in delivery of possession. Where such contractual clauses are material to determining the rights of the developer and allottee, the RERA Appellate Tribunal cannot decide the dispute without considering them.

The order was passed by Justice Vikas Bahl on 17 March 2026 in six connected appeals.

Six RERA Appeals Before the High Court

The common order disposed of the following six appeals:

• RERA-APPL-102-2025 – Signatureglobal (India) Limited v. Asad Ali and another;
• RERA-APPL-111-2025 – Signatureglobal (India) Limited v. Puneet Khaneja;
• RERA-APPL-124-2025 – Sternal Buildcon Private Limited v. Saurabh Dixit;
• RERA-APPL-199-2025 – Signatureglobal (India) Limited v. Nitin Jain;
• RERA-APPL-201-2025 – Signatureglobal (India) Limited v. Priyank Kumar Sharma and another; and
• RERA-APPL-224-2025 – Signatureglobal (India) Limited v. Rampal Singh Chauhan.

The High Court was informed that the issues arising in these appeals were similar to those already considered by it in RERA Appeal No. 92 of 2025, M/s Signature Global (India) Limited v. Praveen Kumar Gupta, which had been decided on 24 December 2025.

The principal controversy revolved around the effect of the contractual provisions governing possession and force majeure and whether those clauses had been adequately considered by the RERA Appellate Tribunal.

Flat Buyer’s Agreement Becomes Central to the Dispute

• In its earlier decision, which formed the basis for disposing of the present appeals, the High Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the existence of a specific Flat Buyer’s Agreement between the developer and the allottees.
• The Court examined several provisions of the agreement, particularly Clauses 5.1, 6.1 and 19.
• Clause 5.1 contemplated that possession would be offered subject, among other things, to force majeure circumstances, receipt of the Occupancy Certificate and compliance by the allottee with contractual obligations.
• It also contemplated an agreed timeframe for offering possession linked to the approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever was later.
• Clause 6.1, in the agreement reproduced by the Court, further dealt with circumstances in which the developer would be considered in default, including failure to provide ready-to-move-in possession by the stipulated date, subject to force majeure conditions.
• These provisions were therefore directly relevant to determining the contractual obligations of the parties.

What Did the Force Majeure Clause Cover?

• A particularly important aspect of the judgment concerns Clause 19 of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement.
• The agreement defined force majeure broadly to include events or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the developer that could not be prevented despite reasonable diligence or precautions.

The events identified in the agreement included:

• fire, drought, flood, earthquake, epidemics and natural disasters;
• explosions, accidents and terrorism;
• strikes, lockouts and industrial disputes;
• non-availability of cement, steel or construction/raw materials;
• war, riots, bandh, terrorism and civil commotion;
• changes in laws, rules or regulations;
• injunctions, court orders or directions issued by governmental or statutory authorities; and
• delays, refusal or withholding of necessary approvals or certificates by governmental authorities.

The agreement also covered circumstances analogous to the expressly listed events.

Automatic Extension for Force Majeure Delay

• The contractual consequences of force majeure were also expressly dealt with.
• Clause 19.2 provided that the developer would not be responsible or liable for failure to perform its obligations where such performance was prevented due to force majeure conditions.
• Clause 19.3 provided that where the offer of possession was delayed because of force majeure, the period for offering possession would stand extended automatically to the extent of the delay caused by the force majeure circumstances.
• The agreement further stated that the allottee would not be entitled to compensation for such period of delay, subject of course to the proper application and legal enforceability of the contractual provisions in the particular case.

Why Did the High Court Interfere?

• The critical problem identified by the High Court was not that it had itself finally accepted every period of delay claimed by the developer as force majeure.
• Rather, the problem was that the contractual clauses material to deciding that question had not been adequately considered by the Appellate Tribunal.
• The High Court observed that the Flat Buyer’s Agreement had specifically been relied upon in the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
• It was also undisputed that the parties were governed by the agreement.
• The original RERA Authority itself had referred to the possession clause and had taken note of the developer’s defence based on the agreement as well as orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, Supreme Court and various authorities.
• However, when the matter reached the Appellate Tribunal, the material contractual clauses highlighted before it were not considered while passing the final order.
• The High Court specifically observed that there was also no finding by the Appellate Tribunal that those contractual clauses were not binding or were otherwise irrelevant.

The Court therefore concluded that the Tribunal had:

“missed an important issue”

which was required to be considered before finally adjudicating the parties’ rights.

Contractual Terms Cannot Simply Be Left Out of RERA Adjudication

The judgment carries an important procedural message for RERA disputes.

Where the developer relies upon a contractual clause governing:

• the committed possession date, force majeure, extension of time, governmental restrictions, court orders, regulatory delays or other circumstances affecting construction, those provisions must be examined where they are material to deciding the dispute.
• The High Court’s reasoning does not, however, mean that every contractual force majeure defence raised by a developer must automatically succeed.
• That distinction is important.
• The Court did not finally determine how many days of extension Signatureglobal or the other appellant was entitled to claim. Instead, it held that the relevant contractual provisions and all other aspects must first be considered by the appropriate Appellate Tribunal before the parties’ rights are finally determined.

High Court Does Not Decide Exact Force Majeure Period

• The High Court was careful not to prejudge the merits of the developers’ claims.
• In its earlier order of 24 December 2025, which was applied to the present batch, the Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion regarding the exact number of days for which the developer should receive the benefit of force majeure.
• All parties were left free to raise their respective contentions before the Appellate Tribunal.
• The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeals afresh and independently in accordance with law.
• This is an important qualification to the ruling.
• The judgment should therefore not be read as a blanket declaration that the entire period claimed by a developer automatically stands excluded from the calculation of delay merely because the agreement contains a force majeure clause.
• Instead, the ruling requires proper adjudication of that defence.

Pre-Deposit Amount Protected Pending Fresh Decision

• Another significant aspect concerned the amount deposited in connection with the RERA appellate proceedings.
• In the earlier connected proceedings, the High Court had directed that the pre-deposit could be released to the complainant subject to adequate security and the ultimate decision.
• However, the Court was subsequently informed that the complainants had not obtained release of the amount and that it remained with the Authority at Gurugram.
• The Court therefore directed the Gurugram Authority to place the amount in a Fixed Deposit carrying the highest rate of interest and ordered that it should not be released until the Appellate Tribunal decided the matter afresh.
• The eventual release would be governed by the fresh decision of the Appellate Tribunal.
• This ensured that the financial interests involved remained protected during the remand proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Decision in the Present Six Appeals

• Having found that the issues raised in the six appeals were similar to those decided in RERA Appeal No. 92 of 2025, the High Court applied the same reasoning.
• The Court accordingly partly allowed all six appeals and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication with the same observations and directions contained in its order dated 24 December 2025.
• The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30 March 2026.
• The High Court further directed that if the respondents did not appear, the Tribunal should issue notice to them. It also preserved their right to seek recall of the High Court’s order if aggrieved.

Key Legal Takeaways

The judgment offers several important lessons for developers, homebuyers and practitioners dealing with RERA disputes.

• First, the Flat Buyer’s Agreement remains materially relevant. Where the rights and obligations concerning possession, delay and force majeure have been contractually defined, those clauses cannot simply be ignored during adjudication.
• Second, force majeure claims require adjudication on facts. The existence of a force majeure clause does not by itself establish the precise extension available to a developer. The event relied upon, its duration, its effect on performance and the contractual language must be considered.
• Third, appellate authorities must deal with material grounds. Where specific contractual clauses are relied upon in appeal and directly bear upon the controversy, failure to examine them may justify judicial interference and remand.
• Fourth, remand does not amount to a final victory on merits. The High Court did not determine the precise number of days that should be excluded from the period of delay. That issue remains open before the Appellate Tribunal.
• Fifth, pre-deposit amounts can remain protected pending adjudication. In these proceedings, the deposited amounts were directed to remain in interest-bearing fixed deposits until the Tribunal’s fresh determination.

Why This Judgment Matters for Real Estate Developers

• For developers, the ruling highlights the importance of maintaining detailed records connecting the claimed force majeure event with the actual delay in construction or possession.
• Merely citing COVID-19, an NGT direction, a governmental restriction, shortage of construction material or regulatory delay may not by itself determine the dispute. The contractual clause and factual impact must be placed before the adjudicating authority and properly considered.

Developers should therefore maintain contemporaneous evidence showing:

• the particular force majeure event relied upon;
• its commencement and cessation;
• the portion of construction affected;
• governmental, judicial or regulatory directions relied upon;
• actual impact on construction activity;
• causal connection between the event and delay; and
• the precise extension claimed.

Such documentation becomes particularly important where the developer seeks exclusion of a specific period from delay compensation or interest calculations.

What the Judgment Means for Homebuyers

• The ruling should likewise not be understood as eliminating an allottee’s statutory remedies merely because a buyer agreement contains a force majeure clause.
• The High Court has remanded the matter precisely because the competing rights and contentions require proper adjudication.
• An allottee may therefore contest whether the event relied upon genuinely qualifies under the contractual clause, whether it actually prevented performance, whether the entire period claimed is justified, and whether the contractual provision can operate in the manner asserted in light of applicable law.
• The Tribunal must consider these competing positions and independently determine the consequences.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in M/s Signatureglobal (India) Limited v. Asad Ali & Connected Appeals reinforces an important principle in real-estate adjudication: material contractual provisions cannot be ignored while determining the rights and liabilities of developers and allottees.

Where the Flat Buyer’s Agreement expressly makes the possession timeline subject to force majeure and defines the circumstances that may extend the period for delivery, those provisions must form part of the adjudicatory exercise.

At the same time, the High Court stopped short of granting the developer any predetermined force majeure extension. Instead, it remanded the disputes so that the Appellate Tribunal could examine the contractual clauses, factual circumstances and competing arguments and decide the appeals afresh. Accordingly, the judgment represents neither an automatic acceptance of the developer’s delay nor a rejection of the allottee’s claim. Its central message is procedural but significant: a RERA appellate decision must address the contractual provisions and material issues necessary for a proper determination of the parties’ rights.

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