The judgment by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) in Bhoomi & Arkade Associates v. Mr. Vijay Menaria & Anr. has culminated in a decisive victory for the allottees, Mr. Vijay Lal Menaria and Mrs. Premlata Menaria, reinforcing the protective ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The final realization of ₹44,36,017.00 on October 6, 2025, significantly surpasses the promoter’s reported attempt at an amicable settlement of approximately ₹27 lakhs, clearly demonstrating the financial benefit of pursuing the statutory route. The allottees, who were suffering due to the promoter’s defaults since 2018, were represented by Adv. Sharon Fernandes, with Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani also appearing on record for the complainants. Both advocates are associated with the law firm “The Law Suits”.
Cost Imposed on Promoter: A Rare Rebuke
In a move that is often seen in rare cases, the Appellate Tribunal demonstrated its strong disapproval of the promoter’s conduct by upholding the imposition of litigation costs. The Tribunal ultimately directed the promoter to pay ₹10,000 as costs to the allottees. The Appellate Tribunal’s stern stance was motivated by the finding that the appeal was unmeritorious and likely pursued only to frustrate the allottee.
The Tribunal’s conclusion that the original order did not warrant interference underscores that the promoter’s arguments—such as blaming the allottees for the non-execution of the Agreement for Sale or citing delays by other authorities like HDIL—were not valid excuses to deny the allottee’s unqualified right to a refund under Section 18 of RERA.
Dilatory Strategy’: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal By Omkar & Era Realtors, Cites Inordinate Delay In Challenging ₹4.22 Cr Recovery Warrant
The Final Tally and Pending Interest Differential
The allottees received a gross amount of ₹44,36,017.00 on October 6, 2025, based on the Tribunal’s order dated September 22, 2025, directing the release of the deposited sum of ₹36,19,668 plus accrued interest.
However, the allottees are still entitled to two components that are yet to be realized:
- Litigation Cost: The ₹10,000 cost directed by the Appellate Tribunal to be paid by the appellant (promoter) to the allottees.
- Interest Differential: The difference between the simple interest rate directed by the authority (9% per annum) or the statutory rate (typically SBI MCLR + 2%) and the potentially lower interest rate (reported to be 6%) paid by the bank on the deposited amount.
This final settlement affirms the consumer-centric approach of RERA, which ensures that a promoter cannot evade accountability by offering a low out-of-court settlement when a much higher statutory refund is due.
The founding advocate of The Law Suits is a known legal professional specializing in RERA and consumer matters. The following YouTube video discusses legal intricacies relevant to RERA.
Difference Between RERA and MOFA by || Adv.Sulaiman Bhimani || MahaSeWA News
For more consumer & RERA law updates, visit: www.thelawsuits.in
Published in public interest by:
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani
Citizens Justice Forum | The Law Suits
413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom, Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053
+91-8928372392 | 
adv.bhimani@gmail.com
#RERA #MahaREAT #HomebuyerRights #DelayedPossession #RefundWithInterest #Section18RERA #PromoterDefault #ConsumerProtection #BuilderPenalty #StatutoryInterest #BhoomiArkadeAssociates #VijayMenaria #AcropolisProject #LegalCosts #44LakhRefund #MaharashtraRERA #AdvocateSharonFernandes #AdvocateSulaimanBhimani #TheLawSuits #LegalVictory