Bombay High Court: RERA Pre-Deposit Applies Even Before Delay Is Condoned

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

Date: 12.11.2026

Bombay High Court: RERA Pre-Deposit Applies Even Before Delay Is Condoned

The Bombay High Court has held that a real estate promoter must satisfy RERA’s mandatory pre-deposit requirement before the appellate tribunal can consider even an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Background of the dispute

M/s Neumec Developers and Builders developed the Shreeji Towers project at Wadala (East), Mumbai, under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The project was registered with MahaRERA after the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force.

The allottees booked Flat No. 2601 on 24 September 2021 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,13,41,430. They stated that they had paid Rs. 1,64,22,791, excluding applicable taxes, stamp duty and registration charges. Possession was to be delivered by 31 December 2021.

Alleging that the developer failed to comply with the agreed terms and sought amounts beyond the contracted consideration, the allottees approached MahaRERA. MahaRERA allowed their complaint and directed the promoter to:

• hand over possession with an Occupation Certificate;
• do so upon receiving the outstanding consideration of Rs. 27,60,090; and
• pay simple interest on Rs. 1,64,22,791 from 1 January 2022 until possession is delivered.

The procedural issue before the Court

The promoter sought to challenge MahaRERA’s order before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. However, the appeal was delayed, so it was filed together with an application to condone the delay.

The Appellate Tribunal directed the promoter to first deposit the entire amount payable under MahaRERA’s order, including accrued interest. When the promoter did not comply, the Tribunal rejected the delay-condonation application, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

The promoter then approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the statutory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA becomes necessary only when the appeal is heard on merits, not while the Tribunal is deciding whether to excuse a filing delay.

Court’s ruling: a delayed appeal remains an appeal

Justice rejected that argument and dismissed both second appeals.

The Court accepted that the word “entertain” ordinarily means to admit a matter for consideration or adjudicate it. But it held that the key issue was not the meaning of “entertain” alone; it was whether an appeal accompanied by a delay-condonation application is legally an appeal.

Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Deluxe Cotton Corporation and earlier Supreme Court authorities, the Court held that:

• an appeal filed with a delay-condonation application is still an appeal in the eyes of law;
• the delay-condonation request is not an independent proceeding detached from the appeal;
• rejection of condonation results in dismissal of the appeal itself; and
• therefore, the statutory bar on entertaining an appeal without pre-deposit applies at the delay-condonation stage as well.

The Court described the appeal and the application for condonation of delay as a composite appellate proceeding.

Why Section 43(5) of RERA applies

Section 43(5) of RERA provides that an appeal by a promoter cannot be entertained unless the promoter first deposits the prescribed amount. Depending on the nature of the order appealed from, this may include at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount payable to the allottee, including interest and compensation.

The promoter argued that the phrase “before the said appeal is heard” meant that deposit could be required only after delay had been condoned. The Court disagreed. It concluded that because the application for condonation forms part of the appeal, the Tribunal cannot proceed with that application unless the promoter first meets the pre-deposit condition.

The Court also noted that allowing a delayed appellant to avoid pre-deposit while pursuing condonation would create an unfair result: a promoter filing within limitation would have to deposit first, while one filing late could seek a procedural advantage.

Consumer-protection purpose of the requirement

The judgment emphasizes the protective purpose of RERA’s pre-deposit mechanism. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that the requirement safeguards amounts determined to be due to allottees and discourages meritless appellate litigation that delays recovery.

According to the Court, permitting a promoter to seek condonation of delay without depositing the amount could keep the dispute pending and prejudice a successful allottee. That outcome would undermine RERA’s objective of securing consumer and allottee rights in real estate transactions.

Outcome and legal significance

The Bombay High Court dismissed the promoter’s appeals and disposed of the related interim application. It added that if the promoter later makes the required deposit and seeks revival of the delay-condonation application, the Appellate Tribunal may consider that request in accordance with law.

This decision confirms that, under Section 43(5) of RERA, pre-deposit is not merely a condition before a merits hearing. It is a threshold condition for a promoter’s delayed appeal to be considered at all, including at the stage of seeking condonation of delay.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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