Bombay High Court Upholds RERA Refund Order Against Marvel Landmarks

Mumbai/Pune, 9th April 2026: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by real estate developer Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., which sought to set aside a 2019 RERA order directing a refund of over ₹1.35 crore to a flat purchaser. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in a judgment pronounced on April 7, 2026, ruled that the developer could not use subsequent legal clarifications by the Supreme Court to reopen cases that had already attained finality years ago.

The case (Writ Petition No. 12121 of 2024) originated from a December 17, 2019, order passed by the Adjudicating Officer of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The officer had directed Marvel Landmarks to refund ₹1,35,99,246 with 10.20% annual interest to the flat purchaser, Siddharth Mohan Palesha, after the developer failed to fulfill its obligations. Marvel Landmarks did not challenge this order within the statutory appeal period. Consequently, when the developer failed to pay, a recovery warrant was issued on October 8, 2021.

The developer approached the High Court in August 2024, nearly five years after the original order. Marvel’s legal counsel argued that the 2019 refund order was “non est” (legally non-existent) in light of the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in the Newtech Promoters and Developers case. Marvel contended that according to Newtech, an Adjudicating Officer only has the jurisdiction to decide compensation, while the power to order a refund lies solely with the Authority. They argued that the 2019 order was therefore passed without jurisdiction and should be quashed as a nullity.

Justice Sundaresan rejected the developer’s arguments on several grounds: Delay and Laches: The Court noted a significant delay. The petition was filed nearly five years after the original order and three years after the Newtech judgment. The Court emphasized that the law does not protect the “indolent” who fail to exercise their right to appeal in a timely manner. Finality of Litigation: The Court held that “closed and concluded matters cannot be reopened” simply because a subsequent judgment by a superior court declares the law differently. Distinction of Precedent: The Court found that the Newtech ruling did not apply to this case in the way Marvel suggested. It clarified that Section 81 of the RERA Act allows for the delegation of powers, and the Supreme Court in Newtech did not invalidate the delegation of refund powers to a single member or officer if properly assigned. Affiliate Conduct: The Court noted that Marveledge, an affiliate concern of Marvel, was involved in similar litigation. The judge remarked that Marvel appeared to be “taking a chance” with this petition to further delay payment.

The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no reasonable basis to interfere with the 2019 order or the 2021 recovery warrant. No costs were imposed. The ruling reinforces the principle that RERA orders, once final, cannot be easily bypassed by citing later changes in legal interpretation.