902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6655 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6765 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL(ST) NO.22285 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6842 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6844 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL(ST) NO.23064 OF 2026 Keemaya Build Private Limited ..Applicant/Appellant Versus Nitin M. Deshpande & Ors …Respondents Adv. Karl Tamboli a/w Adv. Himanshu Agarwal & Adv. B. Mohamedi i/by Bellator Legal ervices LLP for the Appellant in SA(ST)/22285/2026. Adv. Vikramjeet Agarwal a/w Adv. Himanshu Agarwal & Adv. Birrul Mohamedi i/by Bellator Legal Services LLP for the Appellant in SA(ST)/23064/2026. Adv. Aditi Naikare i/by Adv. Snehal Jadhav, for the Respondent in both Appeals. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.: Interim Application No.6655 of 2026 in Second Appeal(ST) No.22285 of 2026: 1. This is an Application for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the Appeal against Order dated 2nd April, 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real PRIYANKA 1/5 902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC Estate Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.506 of 2025 and Miscellaneous Application No.507 of 2025. 2. For the reasons assigned in the Application and to advance the cause of substantive justice, the delay in preferring the Appeal deserves to be condoned. 3. The delay stands condoned. 4. Interim Application stands disposed. 5. The Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 22285 of 2026 be registered. Interim Application No.6842 of 2026 in Second Appeal(ST) No.23064 of 2026: 6. This is an Application for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the Appeal against an Order dated 2nd April, 2026 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.506 of 2025 and Miscellaneous Application No.507 of 2025. 7. For the reasons assigned in the Application and to advance the cause of substantive justice, the delay in preferring the Appeal deserves to be condoned. 8. The delay stands condoned. 9. Interim Application stands disposed. 10. The Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 23064 of 2026 be registered. Second Appeal(ST) No.22285 of 2026 and Second Appeal(ST) No.23064 of 2026: 11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 12. These Second Appeals are directed against an Order dated 2nd April 2026 in Miscellaneous Application No.506 of 2025 and Miscellaneous PRIYANKA 2/5 902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC Application No.507 of 2025 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("Appellate Tribunal") whereby, in the Appeals preferred by the Respondent-Allottee, the Appellate Tribunal has, inter alia, directed the Appellant-Promoter to handover possession of the subject flats to the Allottees within a period of 30 days, upon payment of a sum of Rs.1,91,30,673/- to the Promoter. 13. The parties are at issue over the amount which the Allottees are liable to pay to the Promoter. There is also a larger issue as to whether, in an Appeal preferred by the Allottees against an Order passed by the Authority in an Application for termination of the contract filed by the Promoter, the Appellate Tribunal could award interest for the delay in delivery of possession. 14. The Appellate Tribunal has noted that, even after the payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,91,30,673/-, the controversy remains over the Allottees liability to pay a sum of Rs.41,70,138/- and all the issues in connection therewith would be decided at the stage of final adjudication of the Appeal. 15. Mr. Karl Tamboli, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that, the Appellant-Promoter has received the amount of Rs.1,91,30,673/-. However, the direction to deliver possession of the subject flats, while the amount of Rs.41,70,138/- remains outstanding, as per the claim of the Promoter, would leave the promoter in the lurch in the event the Appeal is decided against the Allottees or the latter simply does not prosecute the Appeal. It was further submitted that the Allottees also need to be put to terms that they shall not part PRIYANKA 3/5 902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC with the possession of, or create third party interest in, the subject flats till the Appeals are decided by the Appellate Tribunal. 16. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that, the Appellate Tribunal has clarified in the impugned Order itself that, all the issues are kept open for adjudication at the stage of final adjudication of the Appeal. Therefore, the interest of the Appellant-Promoter is adequately protected. 17. Since the controversy between the parties revolves around the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.41,70,138/-, as claimed by the Appellant- Promoter, this Court does not consider it appropriate to entertain the Appeal under the regime of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Nonetheless, a few protective measures are required to ensure that, in the event the final outcome is against the Allottees, the Appellant-Promoter is not presented with a fait accompli. Hence, the following Order: ORDER (I) The Appeals stand disposed subject to the following directions: (i) The Allotees shall file an undertaking before the Appellate Tribunal on an affidavit, that in the event the Appeals are decided against the Allottees, the Allottees will deposit such amount along with interest at such rate as may be directed by the Appellate Tribunal, within the stipulated period. (ii) The Allottees shall give prior notice to the Appellant in the event the Allottees propose to withdraw the Appeals. PRIYANKA 4/5 902-903-IA-6655-2026.DOC (iii) In any event, the Appellate Tribunal shall not permit the withdrawal of the Appeals or dispose of the Appeals for want of prosecution, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant-Promoter-Respondent in the Appeals, on the aspect of the liability of the Allottees to pay the balance amount as claimed by the Appellant-Promoter. (II) In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the Interim Applications also stand disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] PRIYANKA 5/5