MahaREAT Sets Precedent on Digital Filing Misuse in Real Estate Disputes

In a landmark ruling, MahaREAT dismissed a homebuyer’s appeal against Kanakia Spaces, holding that an unsigned and unnotarized online filing cannot be treated as a valid appeal. The tribunal ruled the actual delay was 125 days, not eight, and refused condonation.

The case arose from a complaint filed by flat purchaser Anubhav Virmani before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), which was dismissed as premature on January 30, 2025. Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the statutory deadline to challenge the order before MahaREAT expired on March 30, 2025.

Virmani claimed that he filed his appeal online on April 8, 2025, attributing the eight-day delay to frequent professional travel between Mumbai, Gurugram, Jaipur, and Indore. He accordingly sought condonation of this limited delay.

During the proceedings, MahaREAT found that the appeal uploaded on April 8, 2025, was unsigned, unverified, and unnotarized. Tribunal records revealed that the appeal was actually notarised and formally executed only on August 4, 2025, resulting in a delay of 125 days, not eight as claimed by the appellant. Significantly, during oral arguments, the appellant’s counsel admitted on record that an incomplete and unsigned appeal had been uploaded earlier. This admission proved decisive.

Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt Ltd, represented by Advocate Vinod Talreja, filed a detailed reply contending that the April upload was a “shell document” intended solely to generate a misleading filing date. The developer challenged the credibility of the travel-based explanation, pointing to long and unexplained periods of inactivity, including January 30 to February 7, 2025 (nine days), and February 26 to March 30, 2025 (33 days). It was further argued that digital tools such as e-signatures, email, and video conferencing were readily available. The defence also noted that the appellant’s office in BKC and his lawyer’s chamber in Andheri fell along his regular commute, rendering the travel excuse implausible.

The defence relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024), Union of India v. Jahangir Jeejeebhoy (2024), and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013), to establish that negligence, lack of bona fides, or deliberate concealment cannot be condoned.

Despite MahaREAT’s reputation for being purchaser-friendly, the bench conducted a forensic examination of server logs, notarization dates, payment receipts, and uploaded documents. It concluded that a legally valid filing occurred only on August 4, 2025. In unusually strong language, the Tribunal held that the appellant “did not come before this Tribunal with clean hands,” attempted to mislead the court, and that condoning such conduct would create a “dangerous precedent.” Rejecting reliance on a blanket liberal approach to condonation of delay, the bench clarified that judicial discretion cannot override statutory limitation where bad faith and procedural abuse are evident. It warned that permitting unsigned appeals to be regularised months later would encourage litigants to upload incomplete documents merely to secure earlier filing dates.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the appeal as time-barred, holding that the actual delay was 125 days. Legal experts say the ruling will have wide-ranging consequences for real estate litigation and digital court processes. The ruling highlights the integrity of e-filing systems, reaffirms limitation law, and underscores judicial neutrality in builder–buyer cases. It also emphasizes professional accountability and reassures litigants that digital filings will face strict scrutiny. The MahaREAT ruling in Virmani v. Kanakia Spaces Realty is expected to serve as a national reference point on limitation, digital filing discipline, and ethical litigation. Legal commentators describe it as a defining judgment in the era of electronic court processes, signalling that attempts to manipulate digital filings will not be tolerated. Advocate Vinod Talreja said the decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection must operate alongside procedural and ethical rigour, ensuring that digital tools strengthen rather than undermine the justice delivery system.