- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14899 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: EMBASSY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 150, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR B S MOHAN. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 2. KARNATAK REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY II FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. MS PONNAM AJAY PRABHU W/O AJAY ARAVIND PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 67, PURVA PARKRIDGE, GARUDACHAR PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560048. 4. MR ASHEESH MOHTA S/O OF NAVRATAN MOHTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DIRECTOR, EMBASSY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, HAVING OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 150, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 5. MR ADITYA VIRWANI S/O OF MR JITENDRA VIRWANI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DIRECTOR, EMBASSY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, HAVING OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 150,INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 6. MR SIDDHARTH NAWAL S/O OF K L NAWAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DIRECTOR, EMBASSY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, HAVING OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 150,INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 7. MR RAJESH NARAYANAN KAIMAL S/O OF MR K NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DIRECTOR, EMBASSY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, HAVING OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 150, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 8. MS. SWETA SINGH D/O OF ANIL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 150,INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1; SRI. GOUTHAMDEV C ULLAL., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. KARTHIKA NAIR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.06.2024; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.05.2024 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE LD. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY / R-2 IN COMPLAINT NO. 958 OF 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The question for consideration in this petition is: whether this Court must interfere with the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s order dated 16.05.2024 in Complaint No.CMP/958/2023 notwithstanding the appellate remedy to the petitioner under Section 43 of the Real Estate [Regulation and Development] Act, 2016 [RERA Act]. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 2. The third respondent has filed a complaint with the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority’ [the Authority] in No.CMP/958/2023. The Authority has directed the petitioner and the others to pay interest on the delayed period at the rate of SBI MCLR + 2% from 01.04.2018 till the date of handing over possession along with the Occupancy Certificate. The Authority has observed that the third respondent and the petitioner have appeared on 28.02.2024 but the petitioner has failed to file Statement of objections to the main petition and the Memo of Calculation filed by the third respondent despite being granted three months. The Authority has also observed that the petitioner, and the other respondents, have not filed any documents to refute the third respondent's case. 3. Ms. Maneesha Kongovi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 [a] On 28.02.2024, the petitioner indeed appeared and sought for time and the Authority permitted the petitioner to file Statement of objections within two days while reserving the matter for judgment. [b] The petitioner could not file objections and therefore filed an application for condonation of delay along with the Statement of objections on 04.03.2024 stating on affirmation that the delay was only because the petitioner had to collate documents and there was delay in so collating the documents. Ms. Maneesha Kongovi is categorical that the Authority’s permission to file Statement of Objections within two days is not part of the proceedings recorded by the Authority on 28.02.2024 but this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 Court must assess the petitioner's bona fides in the light of the fact that the applicant has indeed filed the application on 04.03.2024 with the Authorities along with the statement of objections. 4. Ms. Karthika Nair, the learned counsel for the third respondent [the Complainant], submits that the third respondent is put to severe difficulty because though the third respondent has paid over Rs.8 Crores and possession of the constructed building had to be handed over in 2018, the petitioner has not handed over possession, and the learned counsel also submits that the petitioner must avail alternative remedy under Section 43 of the RERA Act. 5. The authority has reasoned thus while directing the petitioner and other respondent before it to pay interest on delay in excess of Rs.4,24,22,396/- . - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 " 7. The complainant has appeared before the Authority and filed MOC with supporting documents and served the same on the Respondent. The complainant in support of her claim has produced copies of Payment details, agreement of sale, construction agreement, email correspondence etc. On the other hand the Respondent in spite of availing more than 3 months' time did not file objection statement to the main petition and MOC filed by the Complainant. The respondents except appearing before the Authority, did not file any documents in support of its contention. 8. On a perusal of the memo of calculation for delay period interest submitted by the complainant before the authority, it is evident that complainant has paid advance sale consideration amount and the same is acknowledged by the respondents. Admittedly there is a delay in handing over the apartment as per the agreement. Hence the complainant is entitled to delay period interest u/s 18 of the Act. The Promoter-Respondent has not submitted any memo of calculation nor disputed the memo of calculation submitted by the Complainant." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 It is obvious from the afore reasoning that the Authority has not assessed the merits of the respective case. 6. The petitioner's case is that the Authority reserved liberty to file Statement of Objections and it has filed such statement though belatedly. There is some controversy on whether the Authority indeed reserved such liberty as it is not part of the proceedings. However, it remains salient that the Statement of Objections were part of the proceedings much before the date of the impugned order. 7. This Court opines that for complete adjudication with due opportunity, the Authorities must consider Statement of Objections filed, and this Court is also of the view that if any responsibility to pay interest is to be saddled it must be with a reasonable opportunity lest there be reason for multiplicity in the proceedings. The considered decision will be expedited if this Court - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 intervenes under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to restore the proceedings instead of relegating the petitioner to the alteration remedy. 8. This Court must further observe that an alternative remedy need not always be a reason for this Court to refuse the exercise of the discretion and plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When this Court is interfering to enable an opportunity, the petitioner must also be put on terms, but all the contentions must be left open. In the light of the afore, the following ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part and the Authority's impugned order dated 16.05.2024 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings in CMP No.958/2023 for reconsideration in the light of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 Statement of Objections filed by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. [B] The petitioner and the third respondent [without further notice] shall appear before the Authority on 09.02.2026, and the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Authority in the expeditious disposal of the complaint and the Authorities shall endeavour to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but definitely before 31.03.2026. [C] The petitioner shall on the first date of appearance pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as costs to the third respondent and any default in this regard shall be constructed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3589 WP No. 14899 of 2024 as a default entailing orders on merits. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV