Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings

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

Date: 26.10.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings

The Bombay High Court has held that the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal may restore proceedings dismissed for non-prosecution when sufficient cause is shown, even though RERA does not expressly state that power.

Background of the dispute

Hubtown Ltd. challenged an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that revived an allottee’s delayed appeal. The allottee had originally filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, seeking relief from Maha RERA. Maha RERA dismissed that complaint on 23 April 2024.

The allottee then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a 25-day filing delay. On 3 July 2025, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution because the allottee did not appear. As a consequence, the appeal was also disposed of.

The allottee subsequently sought restoration of both the delay-condonation application and the appeal, along with condonation of the delay in making the restoration request. The Appellate Tribunal allowed those applications, relying in part on its inherent powers under Regulation 25 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019.

The promoter’s challenge

Hubtown argued that the Appellate Tribunal, as a statutory body, could exercise only those Civil Court powers expressly specified in Section 53(4) of RERA. While that provision permits dismissal for default or ex parte proceedings, it does not specifically confer a power to restore a matter dismissed in default.

The promoter also contended that Regulation 25 could not enlarge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond RERA and its rules, and that the allottee had not shown adequate cause for delay.

High Court’s reasoning

Justice N. J. Jamadar rejected the narrow reading of Section 53. The Court emphasized three connected principles:

• Natural justice governs the Tribunal’s procedure. Section 53(1) states that the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be guided by natural justice.
• The Tribunal can regulate its own procedure. Section 53(2) authorizes it to do so, subject to RERA.
• Necessary incidental powers are implied. A tribunal must possess powers that are ancillary and essential to perform its statutory functions effectively, unless the statute expressly prohibits their use.

The Court found that the power to restore a case dismissed for default is a natural counterpart to the power to dismiss it for non-appearance. A tribunal may dismiss a matter when a party does not appear, but fairness may require it to restore the matter if the party later establishes good cause for the absence.

Supreme Court precedents relied upon

The judgment drew support from established Supreme Court decisions:

• In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, the Supreme Court recognized that a judicial or quasi-judicial body which may dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution also has inherent jurisdiction to restore it upon a showing of good cause.
• In Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., the Court held that statutory tribunals have powers expressly granted as well as powers necessarily incidental to making their jurisdiction effective.
• In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that a tribunal may set aside an ex parte award in the interests of justice even without an express provision, absent any statutory prohibition.

Applying these principles, the Bombay High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal’s restoration power exists independently of Regulation 25 because it is essential to achieving RERA’s purpose and to deciding matters fairly.

Limited scope for interference with delay condonation

The Court also declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision to condone delay. It observed that once the first adjudicatory forum has exercised positive discretion to condone delay after assessing the explanation and supporting documents, an appellate or supervisory court should not lightly overturn that decision.

Interference would generally be justified only where the order is perverse or where delay has been condoned without any reasons. The Court found neither circumstance present and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Outcome and legal significance

The Bombay High Court dismissed Hubtown’s second appeal and disposed of the related interim application. The ruling confirms that the Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal is not confined to a mechanical reading of its expressly listed powers. Consistent with natural justice, it may restore a proceeding dismissed in default where sufficient cause is established and no statutory prohibition applies.

This ensures that procedural lapses do not automatically defeat a party’s substantive right to have a real-estate dispute adjudicated on its merits.

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: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com