24 sa 412 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.412 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6638 OF 2026 Mukesh Chamdia ... Appellant versus Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent Mr. Tanuj Lodha with Ms. Vidhi Mehta, Ms. Clarisa D’Souza, Ms. Treya Chheda i/by Lodha and Lodha Advocates,for Appellant. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 2 SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 23 March 2026 passed in Misc. Application No.325 of 2025, whereby the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application preferred by the Appellant to direct the Promoter to deliver possession of the subject apartment to the Appellant – allottee. 3. The Tribunal was of the view that the Appellant – allottee has neither paid the balance consideration amount, nor shown willingness to pay to the promoter or deposit interest amount on account of delay in payment in the Registry of the Tribunal, without prejudice to the rights and contentions to be raised by the Appellant in the appeal preferred before the Tribunal against the SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-AS:36449 24 sa 412 of 2026.doc order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 24 February 2025, thereby rejecting the claim of the Appellant for interest on account of delay in delivery of the possession of the subject apartment, under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has incorrectly recorded that the Appellant has not shown willingness to pay the balance consideration or deposit the amount in the Tribunal. 5. If that is the case, the remedy of the Appellant is to move the Appellate Tribunal and point out the purported mistake in the record. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak1. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant is willing to make payment to the Promoter, provided the Promoter agrees to deliver possession of the subject apartment. 7. It seems that the core controversy between the parties revolves around the exact amount which the Appellant is obligated to pay to the Promoter towards the balance consideration and the interest, if any, thereon, in accordance with the terms of the contract or the amount which the Promoter is liable to pay to the Appellant – allottee on the amount of consideration already parted with by the allottee, for the delay in delivery of possession of 1 AIR 1982 SC 1249 SSP 2/3 24 sa 412 of 2026.doc the subject apartment, as envisaged by the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, 2016. 8. In these circumstances, having regard to the limited nature of the controversy, this Court is of the view that the substantive appeal which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal be decided as expeditiously as possible, so that the entire controversy can be put to rest. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Second Appeal stands disposed with a request to the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide Appeal No.AT06/00336 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 10. Interim Application No.6638 of 2026 also stands disposed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 10:31:54