M/s Neumec Developers and Builders v. Chirag Jain & Anr.
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 315 of 2026 with Second Appeal No. 332 of 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Judge: Justice N. J. Jamadar
Date of decision: 5 August 2026
1. Background and Facts
M/s Neumec Developers and Builders was the promoter of the project “Shreeji Towers”, situated at Wadala (East), Mumbai, developed under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
On 24 September 2021, Chirag Jain and another allottee booked Flat No. 2601 for a total consideration of approximately ₹2.13 crore. The promoter had agreed to hand over possession by 31 December 2021. The allottees claimed to have paid approximately ₹1.64 crore towards the consideration.
The allottees subsequently approached MahaRERA alleging breach of the contractual terms and demands for amounts beyond the agreed consideration.
MahaRERA allowed the complaint and directed the promoter to:
hand over possession of the flat along with the Occupation Certificate;
accept the balance consideration of approximately ₹27.60 lakh; and
pay simple interest on approximately ₹1.64 crore from 1 January 2022 until delivery of possession.
2. Proceedings before Maharashtra REAT
The promoter sought to challenge the MahaRERA order before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT).
Since the appeal was filed after the prescribed limitation period, the promoter filed an application for condonation of delay.
MahaREAT, however, directed the promoter to deposit the amount directed by MahaRERA, together with accrued interest, as required under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act.
The promoter argued that the pre-deposit requirement should arise only when the appeal was actually being heard on merits, and not while the Tribunal was merely deciding whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
The Tribunal rejected this contention. When the promoter failed to comply with the pre-deposit direction, MahaREAT rejected the application for condonation of delay, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
The promoter consequently approached the Bombay High Court through Second Appeal Nos. 315 and 332 of 2026.
3. Main Issue
The central question before the Bombay High Court was:
Whether a promoter seeking condonation of delay in filing a RERA appeal must first comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016.
4. Promoter's Argument
The promoter contended that the words “it shall not be entertained” in Section 43(5) should not be interpreted to require pre-deposit at the stage of an application for condonation of delay.
It was argued that:
an application for condonation of delay is separate from the appeal;
the Tribunal first has to decide whether the delay should be condoned;
only if the delay is condoned would the appeal become capable of being heard; and
therefore, requiring the promoter to make a substantial pre-deposit before knowing whether its delayed appeal would even be admitted was onerous.
5. Findings of the Bombay High Court
The High Court rejected this argument.
A. Delay application is part of the appeal
The Court relied upon the Bombay High Court's earlier Division Bench judgment in Deluxe Cotton Corporation v. Bank of Baroda, which held that an appeal filed together with an application for condonation of delay remains an “appeal in the eyes of law.”
Consequently, rejection of the delay application results in dismissal of the appeal itself.
The Court therefore held that a delay-condonation application cannot be treated as an entirely independent proceeding divorced from the appeal.
B. Section 43(5) pre-deposit applies at the condonation stage
The proviso to Section 43(5) requires a promoter to make the prescribed pre-deposit before the appeal is entertained/heard.
The Court held that because the application for condonation forms part of the appeal, the Tribunal cannot proceed to consider that application without compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.
C. Supreme Court's decision in Newtech
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., particularly its discussion of Section 43(5).
The Supreme Court had explained the purpose of the pre-deposit requirement: to safeguard the amount determined as payable to the allottee and prevent the successful allottee from being forced into prolonged recovery proceedings while the promoter pursues an appeal.
D. Delayed appeals cannot receive a different treatment
The Bombay High Court made an important observation in substance:
If a promoter who files an appeal within limitation is required to make the statutory pre-deposit, a promoter who approaches the Appellate Tribunal belatedly cannot claim a more favourable position merely because it first seeks condonation of delay.
6. Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed both Second Appeal Nos. 315 and 332 of 2026.
The Court nevertheless observed that if the promoter makes the required deposit and thereafter seeks revival of its application for condonation of delay, the MahaREAT may consider such a request in accordance with law, if such a course is legally available.
7. Ratio Decidendi
The principal ratio can be stated as follows:
An application for condonation of delay accompanying a RERA appeal is not independent of the appeal. It forms part of the appellate proceeding. Consequently, a promoter cannot seek consideration of such an application without first satisfying the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016.
This means that the Section 43(5) pre-deposit requirement operates even at the stage of considering an application for condonation of delay.
8. Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 43(5), RERA Act, 2016
Where a promoter files an appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, the appeal cannot be entertained unless the promoter first deposits:
at least 30% of the penalty, or such higher percentage as determined by the Tribunal; or
the total amount payable to the allottee, including interest and compensation, as applicable; or
both, depending upon the nature of the order under challenge.
The provision is intended to protect the allottee while the promoter pursues appellate remedies.
9. Important Precedents Considered
The judgment considered, among others:
M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 1;
Deluxe Cotton Corporation & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2629;
Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal, (2005) 1 SCC 436;
Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT, AIR 1956 SC 367;
Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332;
Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey, AIR 1932 PC 165; and
Thambi v. Mathew, 1987 (2) KLT 848 (FB).
10. Practical Impact for RERA Litigation
This judgment is particularly important for promoters filing delayed appeals against MahaRERA orders.
A promoter cannot structure its litigation strategy as:
Delayed appeal → seek condonation first → make pre-deposit later.
The decision establishes that the pre-deposit requirement must be satisfied before the Tribunal can consider the condonation application.
For allottees, the ruling strengthens the protective purpose of Section 43(5), because an unsuccessful promoter cannot keep an adverse RERA order pending before the appellate forum without first securing the amount directed to be paid to the allottee.
Keywords
RERA Section 43(5) | Mandatory Pre-Deposit | Condonation of Delay | RERA Appeal | MahaREAT | Promoter's Appeal | Allottee Protection | Newtech Promoters | Deluxe Cotton Corporation | Bombay High Court
