JP Builders and Developers v. Santosh Amarsingh Sandhu (connected appeals)
Neither forum had established actual payment of the statutory charges. On the record, the allottee’s failure prevented execution and the promoter’s July 2019 termination was justified, but the promoter could not retain the allottee’s money.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-09-26
Neither forum had established actual payment of the statutory charges. On the record, the allottee’s failure prevented execution and the promoter’s July 2019 termination was justified, but the promoter could not retain the allottee’s money. Promoter’s appeal partly allowed, allottee’s dismissed; RERA orders set aside. The promoter must refund ₹12.30 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% from 12 July 2016 until repayment, with no earnest-money deduction.
What happened
A flat allottee did not complete the stamp-duty and registration payment steps despite opportunities to execute an agreement for sale. Maharashtra RERA and its appellate tribunal ordered the promoter to proceed with the agreement; the promoter challenged those directions.
Questions before the court
- Could a bank transfer towards stamp duty and registration prove actual payment and compel the promoter to wait indefinitely to execute the agreement?
Why the court ruled this way
Neither forum had established actual payment of the statutory charges. On the record, the allottee’s failure prevented execution and the promoter’s July 2019 termination was justified, but the promoter could not retain the allottee’s money.
Controlling point
Neither forum had established actual payment of the statutory charges. On the record, the allottee’s failure prevented execution and the promoter’s July 2019 termination was justified, but the promoter could not retain the allottee’s money.
Order and next steps
Promoter’s appeal partly allowed, allottee’s dismissed; RERA orders set aside. The promoter must refund ₹12.30 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% from 12 July 2016 until repayment, with no earnest-money deduction.
Practical implications
The operative result is case-specific: Promoter’s appeal partly allowed, allottee’s dismissed; RERA orders set aside. The promoter must refund ₹12.30 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% from 12 July 2016 until repayment, with no earnest-money deduction. Apply it within the court’s stated limit: The result follows the specific payment record and termination notices; it does not permit routine cancellation of otherwise compliant allotments.
Limits of this ruling
- The result follows the specific payment record and termination notices; it does not permit routine cancellation of otherwise compliant allotments.
Law and judgment source
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, section 13
- Stamp duty and registration requirements
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-09-26 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 52–56 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.