Bombay High Court
Propel Developers Pvt Ltd vs Mikunj Kiran Joshi on 7 January, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
37&47-SA588-2025+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13746 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2025
Propel Developers Pvt Ltd ...Appellant
Versus
Mikunj Kiran Joshi ...Respondent
SANTOSH WITH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI SECOND APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2025
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
WITH
Date: 2026.01.07
18:08:56 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13865 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2025
Propel Developers Pvt Ltd ...Petitioners
Versus
Manoj Nautamlal Gandhi ...Respondent
Mr. Vikramjit Garewal, a/w Abir Patel (through VC) and
Protyusha Thanawala, i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co, for the
Appellant in both Appeals.
Mr. Jairam Chandnani (through VC), a/w Shraddha Jadhav,
i/b Lexim Associates, for the Respondent in both the
Appeals.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 7th JANUARY, 2026
PC:-
SA/588/2025 and SA/587/2025
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:49:33 :::
37&47-SA588-2025+.DOC
2. The following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration:
(i) Whether in respect of one and the same project and in
matters arising out of identical facts-situation, one Bench
of the Appellate Tribunal could take a contrary view on
the aspect of the liability of the allottee to pay additional
consideration upon purported increase in the carpet
area, and the liability of the promoter to pay interest for
the delay in delivery of possession, till the actual delivery
of possession or only till the date of offer of delivery of
possession, when one Honorable Member is a part of
both the Benches, and, if not, whether failure to follow
the earlier view or refer the matter to a larger Bench,
vitiated the impugned judgment and order?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
liability of the promoter to pay interest for the delayed
delivery of possession of the subject flat, came to an end
after two months of the offer to deliver the possession
and, thus, the Appellate Tribunal was in error in
directing the Promoter to pay interest till the actual
delivery of possession?
3. Admit.
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:49:33 :::
37&47-SA588-2025+.DOC
4. Issue notice to the respondent.
5. Mr. Chandnani, the learned Counsel, waives notice for the
respondent.
6. The appellant shall file private paper-book within a period
of eight weeks.
7. The appeals be listed for final hearing on 18 th March,
2026.
IA/13746/2025 and IA/13865/2025
8. The second appeals have been admitted by framing
substantial questions of law.
9. These interim applications have been preferred seeking
stay to the execution and operation of the impugned orders
passed by the Appellate Tribunal thereby directing the applicant
- promoter to refund the additional amount of consideration of
Rs.10,85,000/- and GST of Rs.1,30,200/- along with interest at
the rate of State Bank of India's Highest Marginal Cost Leading
Rate (MCLR) plus 2% interest, from the date of respective
payment till realization and interest under Section 18 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("RERA, 2016")
on the amount paid by the allottee towards consideration from
1st January, 2016 till the date of handing over physical
3/6
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:49:33 :::
37&47-SA588-2025+.DOC
possession of the respective flat to the allottee, at the State
Bank of India's MCLR plus 2% within 30 days of the said order.
10. In another appeal being Appeal No.AT0006000000052847
in respect of the very same project and arising out of identical
facts-situation, another Bench of the Appellate Tribunal by a
judgment and order dated 31st January, 2023, has held that the
allottee in the said case was liable to pay the said additional
consideration of Rs.10,85,000/- and GST Rs.1,30,200/- on
account of increase in the carpet area and restricted the liability
of the promoter to pay interest for the delayed delivery of
possession from 1st January, 2016 till 11th July, 2018, the date
the possession was offered to be given to the allottee. One
Honorable Member was a party to both the impugned judgment
and the judgment in Appeal No.AT0006000000052847.
11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question of
entitlement of the respondents/allottees to the refund of the
additional consideration alongwith interest, and interest for the
delayed period of possession up to the date of actual physical
delivery of possession, warrants consideration.
12. Since there is not much controversy over the liability to
pay interest for the delayed delivery of possession from 1 st
January, 2016 to 1st April, 2018 and, in the impugned order, the
4/6
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:49:33 :::
37&47-SA588-2025+.DOC
Appellate Tribunal has categorically recorded that there has
been no change in the area of the subject flats initially offered to
be sold and the area shown in the revised sanctioned plan, and
no additional area has been allotted to the allottee, this Court
considers it necessary to put the applicant/promoter to terms
while staying the execution and operation of the impugned
judgment and order.
13. Hence, the following order:
: O R D E R:
(I) The applications stand partly allowed. (II) The execution, operation and implementation of the impugned common judgment and order is stayed till final hearing of the appeals subject to the following conditions:
(a) The applicant promoter shall deposit the amount of additional consideration of Rs.10,58,000/- and GST Rs.1,30,200/- before the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of one month from today.
(b) The applicant promoter shall pay interest under Section 18 of the RERA, 2016 on the amount of consideration paid by the respondent allottee in respect of the respective subject flats from 1st January, 2016 to 1st April, 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:49:33 ::: 37&47-SA588-2025+.DOC 2018 at the rate of State Bank of India's MCLR plus 2%, within one month from today.
(c) In the event of default, the Authorities under RERA, 2016 shall be at liberty to enforce the order of the Appellate Tribunal, in accordance with law.
Applications disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:49:33 :::