Bombay High Court to Examine Mandatory Registration of Non-Advertised Real Estate Wings

The Bombay High Court has stayed a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order that required a builder to register two additional wings of its real estate project in Maharashtra. Justice Arun R Pednekar made this observation on November 25, 2025, while issuing notice in the second appeals filed by Goldendreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the promoter of the Flamingo project. The Appellate Tribunal had ordered Goldendreams to register the “B” and “C” wings of the Flamingo Project, which were not yet advertised.

The court noted that the central issue of whether registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act becomes mandatory when no units are advertised or offered for sale requires examination. The court posed the question: “Whether the promoter has to mandatorily register a project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, despite the promoter not advertising or selling units in the project?”

The court also restrained Goldendreams Buildcon from advertising or selling units in wings B and C until they are registered. The appeals arise from a complaint filed by Saffron Infradev before MahaRERA, seeking registration of the two wings or a refund of the money claimed to have been paid. MahaRERA rejected the complaint in August 2019, holding that Saffron Infradev could not be treated as an allottee and was a joint promoter of the Flamingo project.

The Appellate Tribunal later partly allowed the appeal and directed the registration of the entire project within 60 days, with penalties for non-compliance under Section 59. Goldendreams Buildcon challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that Section 3 of the Act requires registration only when a promoter advertises, markets, books, sells, or offers units for sale. The promoter submitted that no such activity took place with respect to wings B and C and that the Tribunal had incorrectly assumed that the entire project had been advertised.

After hearing the submissions, the court held that the matter raises substantial questions of law. These include whether a promoter must register unadvertised phases of a project, whether the tribunal relied on facts inconsistent with pleadings in a related commercial suit, whether the findings on registration were perverse, and whether the tribunal erred in overturning MahaRERA's order without holding it perverse.

The stay on the tribunal's directions will remain in effect until the next hearing, when the Court will also consider any request to modify or vacate the interim relief.