The Bombay High Court stayed the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s direction requiring registration of Wings “B” and “C” of Project Flamingo under MahaRERA, while taking note of the appellant’s contention that no advertisement or sale was made for these wings. The Court emphasised that RERA registration becomes mandatory only upon advertising or offering units for sale, highlighting the need for careful interpretation of Section 3 of the RERA Act.
The case concerns the real estate project “Flamingo,” promoted jointly by the appellant. The project consists of multiple wings, completed in phases. The respondents, financiers of the project, had filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking directions to register Wings “B” and “C,” or alternatively, to refund their investment with interest. While Wing “A” had already been registered, MahaRERA initially rejected the complaint, holding that the respondents were joint promoters and not allottees. The Respondents subsequently appealed, and the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed their appeal, directing the appellant to register Wings “B” and “C” within 60 days, with a penalty in case of non-compliance.
The Appellant’s counsel argued that the Appellate Tribunal’s findings were perverse. It was submitted that Wings “B” and “C” were neither advertised for sale nor sold, and therefore, no registration under RERA was yet required. The counsel relied on Section 3 of the RERA Act, emphasizing that mandatory registration is triggered only when a promoter advertises, markets, or offers units for sale. Further, the counsel contended that the Tribunal’s characterisation of the respondents as purchasers was erroneous, and that the appellate authority misapplied the law in setting aside MahaRERA’s earlier order.
The Court acknowledged the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, including whether RERA registration is mandatory absent any advertisement or sale, and whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in entertaining a complaint based on alleged false facts. The Court also considered whether the Tribunal’s findings regarding the registration of the project were perverse and whether it erred in overturning MahaRERA’s August 28, 2019, order. The Court noted the appellant’s submission that Section 3 of the RERA Act imposes a negative obligation and that registration cannot be compelled without an offer for sale.
The Court issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on December 23, 2025. In the meantime, the directions of the Appellate Tribunal are stayed. The Appellant is restrained from advertising or selling Wings “B” and “C” until their registration under RERA. The Court will also consider any modification or vacation of the interim stay at the next hearing.
Case Title: Goldendreams Buildcon Pvt Ltd Vs. Saffron Infradev Pvt Ltd
Case No.: 1102 Second Appeal No. 426 of 2025
Coram: Justice Arun R. Pedneker
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Vikramjit Garewal, Siraj Menon, Darshan Sahuji
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
