Tag: #MacrotechDevelopersLimited

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

Date: 18.09.2026

Bombay HC: RERA Tribunal Cannot Grant Declaration, Permanent Injunction or Cancel Sanction Plan

In a significant ruling concerning the interface between RERA and the jurisdiction of civil courts, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a revision application filed by Macrotech Developers Limited, holding that the bar under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not extend to reliefs that the RERA authorities are not empowered to grant.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that a dispute involving a cooperative housing society’s substantive rights over an existing clubhouse and internal roads, coupled with prayers for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of a sanctioned development plan, could be adjudicated by the Civil Court because RERA does not empower its authorities to grant such reliefs.

The High Court consequently upheld the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed Macrotech Developers’ Civil Revision Application.

Dispute Relates to Lodha Belmondo Project in Pune

• Macrotech Developers Limited was the promoter of the Lodha Belmondo development project at Village Gahunje, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The project comprised multiple towers and villas over a large parcel of land.
• Saint Andrews Co-operative Housing Society represented flat owners in various towers and villas situated within an area described as “The Reserve” in the Lodha Belmondo project.
• According to the Society, the project had been marketed from around 2012–2013 and agreements for sale had been entered into with purchasers. Its case was that Towers B, C and D and Villas 1–28, along with other towers, were integral parts of “The Reserve.”

Multiple Sanction Plans and Clubhouse at Centre of Dispute

• The judgment records a series of sanctioned development plans.
• A third sanctioned plan dated April 30, 2013 showed six buildings and 28 villas as part of “The Reserve”. A fifth sanctioned plan dated June 22, 2018 specifically referred to a clubhouse for members of “The Reserve”. A subsequent seventh sanctioned plan dated September 20, 2021, however, showed the clubhouse near Tower No. 26 as proposed to be demolished.
• Members of the Society had received possession of their flats in 2017 following issuance of an Occupation Certificate, while the Society itself was registered in March 2021.
• The dispute escalated in October 2022 when Macrotech’s workers allegedly prevented Society members from entering and using the clubhouse on the ground that the existing facility was to be demolished and replaced.

Society Approaches Civil Court

• The Society instituted a civil suit seeking, among other things, a declaration regarding the clubhouse situated behind Tower No. 26 and an injunction restraining the developer and its representatives from preventing members from accessing the clubhouse.
• It also sought to prevent demolition or additional construction pursuant to changes made in the layout and the seventh sanctioned plan.
• The Trial Court rejected Macrotech Developers’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as barred by law.
• Macrotech thereafter approached the Bombay High Court by way of the present Civil Revision Application challenging that order.

Macrotech: Section 79 RERA Bars Civil Court Jurisdiction

• Macrotech argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction because Section 79 of RERA expressly bars Civil Courts from entertaining matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under RERA.
• The developer contended that once a project is registered under RERA, disputes arising out of or incidental to that project must be pursued before the competent forum under the statute.
• Macrotech also relied upon Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and argued that the suit was barred under that enactment as well.
• It relied, inter alia, on the Supreme Court’s ruling in New Tech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1044, to contend that RERA applies to ongoing projects which had not received completion certificates before the legislation came into force.
• Macrotech also relied on Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 783, and argued that the Society could pursue appropriate remedies before the RERA forum or Consumer Forum rather than the Civil Court.

Society: RERA Cannot Grant the Declaratory Reliefs Sought

• The Society opposed the revision and argued that it was itself a separate legal entity registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and was not an individual “allottee” within the meaning of RERA.
• It further argued that Section 79 could not operate as a blanket exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction in disputes between a cooperative housing society and a promoter.
• More importantly, the Society contended that it had sought declaratory and other civil reliefs that RERA authorities could not grant.
• According to the Society, Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over civil disputes unless expressly or impliedly barred, and the nature of the relief sought was therefore crucial in deciding jurisdiction.

Bombay HC Explains Test Under Order VII Rule 11(d)

• The High Court reiterated that while considering rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the Court must examine the averments contained in the plaint along with its annexures as a whole.
• At this stage, material outside the plaint cannot be added or subtracted to determine whether the suit is barred by law.
• The Court observed that rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) is justified only when the plaint itself discloses that the action is legally barred.
• In the present case, the Society sought a declaration that the clubhouse behind Tower No. 26 was an integral part of “The Reserve”, a permanent injunction against its demolition, and a declaration challenging the September 20, 2021 sanction plan to the extent it contemplated demolition of the existing clubhouse and construction of another structure in its place.

Section 79 RERA Is Not a Blanket Bar Against Civil Suits

• The High Court then examined Sections 79, 88 and 89 of RERA.
• Section 79 bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits or proceedings concerning matters that the RERA Authority, Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine.
• However, Section 88 expressly provides that RERA operates “in addition to, and not in derogation of” other laws, while Section 89 gives RERA overriding effect where inconsistency exists.
• Reading these provisions together, the High Court held that RERA is not the sole remedy for every dispute between allottees and promoters/developers.
• The Section 79 bar applies only to those matters that the authorities constituted under RERA are actually empowered to determine.

Can RERA Authority Grant the Same Relief as a Civil Court? Bombay HC Applies Supreme Court Test

• The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, (1985) 4 SCC 10.
• The principle applied was that even where a special statute creates a tribunal and accords finality to its decisions, exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction depends materially upon whether the statutory tribunal is capable of granting the relief that a Civil Court would ordinarily grant.
• Where the specialised forum does not possess the power to grant such relief, exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction cannot readily be inferred.
• This became the decisive principle in the case.

RERA Tribunal Cannot Grant Declaration, Permanent Injunction and Cancellation of Sanction Plan: Bombay HC

Applying the above principle, Justice Jadhav held that the dispute involved the Society’s substantive right to use an existing clubhouse and its challenge to a subsequent sanctioned plan allegedly validated without its approval.

The Court specifically found an “apparent and glaring absence” of provisions under RERA empowering its authorities to adjudicate reliefs in the nature of:

• declaration;
• permanent injunction; and
• cancellation of a sanction plan approved by the Planning Authority.

Consequently, such a dispute could not be said to fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under RERA.

Society’s Right to Use Clubhouse Had “Crystallized”

• The High Court also took note of the factual history of the clubhouse.
• The clubhouse had appeared in the fifth sanctioned plan dated June 22, 2018, had subsequently been constructed, and was being used by members of the Society.
• The seventh sanctioned plan dated September 20, 2021 proposed its demolition. The Court noted that the Society’s consent had admittedly not been obtained before the seventh plan was validated or proposed.
• The Court observed that the Society members’ right to use the clubhouse had already “stood crystallized and in place since inception and on construction of the Clubhouse.”
• The dispute also involved internal roads that were allegedly proposed to be constructed upon pursuant to the seventh sanctioned plan without the Society’s consent.

Civil Court Alone Can Grant Appropriate Relief in Such Circumstances

• The High Court concluded that the substantive rights claimed by the Society could be protected through the civil suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
• It rejected Macrotech Developers’ contention that the Society’s remedy lay before the RERA Tribunal and held that, in the circumstances before it, the Civil Court could entertain the dispute and grant appropriate reliefs.
• Accordingly, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s order refusing to reject the plaint and dismissed Macrotech Developers’ Civil Revision Application.

Important Clarification: Merits of Society’s Suit Not Finally Decided

• The ruling should not be read as a final determination that the seventh sanctioned plan is invalid or that the Society has conclusively established all of the substantive rights asserted in its suit.
• The High Court expressly clarified that its findings were prima facie and restricted to the revision proceedings, and that they should not influence the ultimate adjudication of the underlying suit. The parties’ other contentions and remedies were kept open.
• Thus, Saint Andrews Co-operative Housing Society succeeded on the jurisdiction/maintainability issue, while the underlying civil dispute remains to be adjudicated on merits.

Key Legal Takeaway

The judgment reinforces that Section 79 of RERA does not create a universal bar against Civil Court jurisdiction merely because a dispute concerns a RERA-registered real estate project.

The decisive inquiry is whether the particular matter and relief sought are within the statutory powers of the RERA Authority, Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal. Where the dispute requires relief such as a civil declaration, permanent injunction or cancellation of a sanctioned development plan that the RERA forum is not empowered to grant, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction may remain available.

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