MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2021)
LEGAL SUBJECTS - Real Estate Law, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection Law, Administrative Law, Contract Law
CITATION OF THE CASE -
Writ Petition (ST) No. 1118 of 2021
FACTS -
The Homebuyers in Tower B (part of the project) alleged delays, lack of registration under RERA, and failure to meet obligations. The developer argued that Tower B did not require RERA registration as partial OCs were obtained before implementation (1 May 2017). They were dismissed by MahaRERA (18 December 2017), citing Prasad Patkar vs. Runwal Projects (Full Bench ruling), which held MahaRERA lacks jurisdiction over unregistered projects. The Homebuyers re-filed, leading to the impugned order (31 December 2020) by MahaRERA, which the developer challenged via writ petition.
ISSUES -
a) Whether MahaRERA could entertain complaints for unregistered phases of a project (Tower B) where partial OCs were issued pre-RERA? Whether the second complaint was barred due to the finality of the first dismissal?
DECISION BY COURT -
The court held that MahaRERA had no jurisdiction over unregistered projects. It relied on the judgment of Prasad Patkar vs. Runwal Projects (2017), where the full bench of MahaRERA ruled that complaints are maintainable only for registered projects. The court emphasized that the first dismissal (2017) was final, and re-filing on the same grounds violated Section 11 of CPC (res judicata). The phases with partial OCs obtained pre-RERA (before 1 May 2017) need not register under RERA.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE -
It affirmed that MahaRERA’s authority is limited to registered projects, preventing forum shopping by homebuyers. It sets a precedent for dismissing repetitive complaints on the same cause of action, reducing litigation abuse. It clarified that phased projects with partial OCs pre-RERA are exempt from registration, protecting developers from retroactive compliance.
Compiled by Adv. Bincy Benny, Research and Training Admin,ATPA.
