Rushi Builder And Developers vs. Rekha Gamaprasad Yadav
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Rushi Builder and Developers, is challenging an order that directed the delivery of possession of an apartment and awarded interest for delayed delivery. The respondent, Rekha Gamaprasad Yadav, is the allottee. The authority's order dated 8 April 2019, based on a statement by the complainant, transferred the matter to the Adjudication Officer for compensation. Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to refund GST amounting to Rs. 7,76,322/-. The appellant is seeking a stay on the execution of the impugned order, having been ordered to deposit Rs. 41,68,498/- by the Adjudicating Officer on 11 November 2025.
Held
The Court framed two substantial questions of law. The first question concerns the Authority's power to direct possession and award interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act when the matter was transferred for compensation adjudication. The second question pertains to the Appellate Tribunal's direction to refund GST, given that the allottee had initiated proceedings before the Central GST authorities. The Court has not yet decided these issues, as it is in the process of hearing the appeal. The Court has granted an interim relief, subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 41,68,498/- within four weeks. This deposited amount is to be invested in an interest-bearing account, and the respondent can apply for withdrawal, which will be decided on merits. The appeal is scheduled for final hearing on 8 April 2026.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Authority could issue directions for delivery of possession and award interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, when the complainant's statement led to the matter being transferred to the Adjudication Officer for compensation adjudication? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal could direct the Appellant to refund the GST amount of Rs. 7,76,322/- to the allottee, on the premise that the transaction was not excisable to GST, despite proceedings initiated by the allottee before the Central GST Authorities? Appellant's contentions: The appellant argues that the Authority exceeded its powers by issuing directions for possession and interest when the case was meant for compensation adjudication. Regarding GST, the appellant implicitly questions the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide on GST excisability when the matter was before GST authorities. Respondent's contentions: The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, beyond their role as the allottee seeking possession and refund.
Sections Cited
Section 18
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
902 sa 558 of 2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.558 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12223 OF 2025 Rushi Builder and Developers ... Appellant/Applicant versus Rekha Gamaprasad Yadav
… Respondent Mr. Vikramjit Garewal with Mr. Pranav Khatkul, Mr. Janu U. Gulati, for Appellant. Mr. Tushar Sonawane with Mr. Satyavijay G. Yadav i/by Mr. sunil Kewalramani, for Respondent. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2026 P.C.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration :
(i) Whether the Authority could have issued directions for delivery of possession of the subject apartment and awarded interest for the delayed delivery of possession by invoking the provisions under Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, when, upon a statement of the complainant recorded in the order of the Authority dated 8 April 2019, the Complainant stood transferred to the Adjudication Officer, for adjudication of compensation ? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal could have directed the Appellant to refund the GST amount of Rs.7,76,322/- to the allottee, on the premise that SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-AS:9984
902 sa 558 of 2025.doc the transaction was not excisable to GST in the face of the proceedings initiated by the allottee before the Authorities under the Central GST ?
The Appellant shall file a private paper book within a period of four weeks.
The parties are put to notice that an endeavour will be made to hear and decide the appeal finally.
Stand over to 8 April 2026. Interim Application No.12223 of 2025 :
Since the attachment warrant has been issued, the Appellant seeks stay to the execution and operation of the impugned order.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Applicant, on instructions, submits that the Applicant is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.41,68,498/- for which recovery warrant has been ordered to be issued by the Adjudicating Officer on 11 November 2025 and, consequently, attachment warrant has been issued.
Subject to the Applicant depositing an amount of Rs.41,68,498/-, in this Court, within a period of four weeks, there shall be an interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Application.
Upon deposit of the said amount, the Registry shall invest the said amount in an interest bearing account.
The Respondent – allottee shall be at liberty to file an application for withdrawal of the said amount, which shall be decided on its own merits and SSP 2/3
902 sa 558 of 2025.doc in accordance with law.
Interim Application stands disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/02/2026 15:10:37
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.