MahaRERA Approves New Developer for Stalled Kurla Real Estate Project

In a significant development, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has granted a fresh registration pathway to a new developer for the long-delayed ‘Sapphire I’ project in Kurla. This decision aims to safeguard the rights of existing homebuyers while holding the outgoing promoter accountable for past obligations.

In its March 24, 2026 order, the regulator allowed Mahadev Realtors Powai Pvt Ltd to seek a new registration number for the project, which was originally registered in 2017 by ITMC Developers Pvt Ltd. Despite multiple deadline extensions and buyer complaints, the project has remained incomplete. The project, located in Kurla on a 3,860 sq m plot with a sanctioned 22-storey building, had a proposed completion date of 2017, later extended to December 2023.

Following persistent defaults, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) terminated ITMC Developers in March 2024 under provisions of the Slum Act. Acting on a lender-led amnesty proposal, the authority appointed a new developer—later renamed Mahadev Realtors Powai Pvt Ltd—to take over and complete the project.

MahaRERA noted that since the new developer was appointed through a statutory process and not via a voluntary transfer under Section 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the case did not qualify as a standard transfer of project rights. At the same time, the authority ruled that dual registration of the same land parcel is not permissible. To resolve this, it directed that the existing project registration under the old promoter be kept in abeyance, not cancelled. A fresh registration number will be issued to the incoming developer after due scrutiny.

This allows the new developer to legally market and execute the project, while keeping regulatory oversight intact over the old promoter, the regulator observed.

The order comes after strong objections from over 20 homebuyers and investor groups, who argued that their agreements for sale and payments create vested rights that cannot be ignored. The new developer cannot “pick benefits without liabilities”. A partially constructed 21-storey structure was demolished without consent. Fresh registration could lead to resale of already booked flats, causing financial loss.

Several allottees also pointed to pending cases before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and courts, and sought either rejection of the new registration or strict conditions to protect their interests.

On the other hand, the incoming developer argued that it has no contractual relationship with existing buyers. The previous developer’s termination extinguishes its rights. Liabilities of the old promoter cannot be transferred without legal basis. The outgoing developer, ITMC, also opposed the move, questioning the legality of its replacement and citing pending litigation before the Bombay High Court.

In a crucial clarification, MahaRERA held that the new developer will be treated as a “promoter” going forward, enabling project completion. However, past liabilities remain with the outgoing promoter, unless explicitly transferred. Citing legal precedents, the authority observed that a change in developer does not automatically shift obligations towards existing allottees.

To protect buyers, MahaRERA introduced a layered mechanism such as payments due to the outgoing promoter from the project lender will be ring-fenced to settle buyer claims. The old project account has been frozen. The outgoing promoter is barred from marketing or selling units. Buyers can continue to pursue claims against the old developer before MahaRERA. Additionally, the regulator kept the earlier project registration active in a limited sense to ensure buyers can still seek relief under RERA provisions.

The order also clarified that the project’s lender—an asset reconstruction company—cannot be treated as a “promoter” under RERA, as its role is limited to financial recovery and not project execution.