Mumbai/Pune: In a significant homebuyer-friendly ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., reaffirming the enforceability of a 2019 Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) order directing Marvel Landmarks to refund ₹1.35 crore along with interest to a flat purchaser.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, refused to quash the December 17, 2019 order that mandated Marvel Landmarks to refund ₹1,35,99,246 with 10.20% annual interest to buyer Siddharth Mohan Palesha.
The court also declined to interfere with the October 8, 2021 recovery order, which allows the dues to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Marvel Landmarks Challenge Rejected
The petition by Marvel Landmarks sought to invalidate the MahaRERA order on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the Adjudicating Officer lacked authority to direct refunds.
The developer relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, contending that only compensation—not refunds—could be adjudicated under Section 71 of the RERA Act.
However, the Bombay High Court rejected this interpretation, clarifying that the Newtech judgment primarily addressed the powers of regulatory authorities and delegation under Section 81 of the Act. It did not prohibit Adjudicating Officers from issuing refund orders when powers were validly delegated.
Also Read: Marvel Group Promoter Vishwajeet Jhavar Faces Insolvency Action by NCLT Mumbai
Finality of Orders Emphasised
A key factor in the court’s decision against Marvel Landmarks was the failure to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed timeline. The court noted that the 2019 order had attained finality, as Marvel Landmarks did not challenge it within the 120-day limit under Section 44 of the RERA Act.
The writ petition was filed only in August 2024—nearly five years after the original order and almost three years after the Newtech judgment. The court held that such delayed challenges cannot reopen settled matters.
Delay and Laches Critical to Verdict
Justice Sundaresan highlighted that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be used to revive long-settled disputes.
Citing precedents such as U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh and State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, the court emphasized that delay and lack of diligence weaken claims for relief.
The court observed that Marvel Landmarks appeared to have approached the court only after the homebuyer initiated enforcement proceedings, indicating a reactive rather than proactive legal strategy.
Distinction from Similar Cases
While Marvel Landmarks cited relief granted in a related matter involving Marveledge Realtors, the court distinguished the present case due to significant delay. It ruled that each case must be assessed on its own facts, particularly regarding timelines and procedural compliance.
Strong Message for Developers
The ruling reinforces that Marvel Landmarks and similar developers cannot rely on subsequent judicial interpretations to challenge orders that have already attained finality. The court underscored that rights crystallised through unchallenged RERA orders remain protected.
Recovery Proceedings to Continue
With the dismissal of the writ petition, recovery proceedings against Marvel Landmarks will continue. The court declined to grant any relief and passed no order as to costs.
This judgment sends a clear signal that delayed legal challenges against RERA orders—especially those involving Marvel Landmarks—will not be entertained, strengthening the enforcement framework for homebuyer protection under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
