Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Bombay HC upholds cancellation of Airoli flat over unpaid stamp duty

Дата публикации: 26-09-2026 16:45:34

The Bombay High Court found that the buyer had not actually paid the stamp duty and registration charges to the authorities, despite claiming that he had 

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

The Bombay High Court has upheld a builder’s decision to cancel the allotment of an Airoli flat after the prospective buyer failed to pay stamp duty and registration charges needed to complete the sale deed. Justice Sandeep Marne set aside orders passed by MahaRERA and its Appellate Tribunal directing JP Builders and Developers to complete the transaction and hand over the flat to buyer Santosh Sandhu.

Bombay HC upholds cancellation of Airoli flat over unpaid stamp duty (Photo for representational purposes only) (Pexels)
Bombay HC upholds cancellation of Airoli flat over unpaid stamp duty (Photo for representational purposes only) (Pexels)

The court found that Sandhu had not actually paid the stamp duty and registration charges to the authorities, despite claiming that he had deposited the money with a bank. The builder had cancelled the transaction on July 30, 2019, after Sandhu said he was unable to pay the charges because of financial difficulties.

The flat was originally booked by Nagendra Khartmol, who later transferred the allotment to Sandhu. The builder told the court that it was ready to execute the agreement for sale, but could not proceed because Sandhu had not made the payments required for registration.

What did the MahaRERA order say?

Sandhu had approached MahaRERA claiming that he had deposited ₹4.35 lakh towards stamp duty and ₹30,000 towards registration charges at the Punjab National Bank branch in CBD Belapur. He also claimed that he had asked the builder to complete the registration by adding his mother’s name to the document.

Also Read: MahaRERA rejects homebuyers’ plea over bathroom fittings; says developer can change brand if quality isn’t inferior

MahaRERA, on October 8, 2020, accepted Sandhu’s complaint, set aside the cancellation and directed the builder to execute a registered sale deed and allot him a flat of his choice. The authority held that the allotment had been cancelled despite Sandhu having paid the stamp duty and registration charges.

The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal later upheld the order and also awarded interest on the amount paid by Sandhu. The builder then approached the high court through advocate Rajesh Vanzara.

Also Read: MahaRERA orders developer to refund clubhouse charges to homebuyer as it remains unbuilt after six years of possession

Advocate Vishal Kanade, appearing for the builder, said the company had remained ready to execute the agreement but the transaction could not be completed because Sandhu failed to pay the required charges. He said the builder cancelled the transaction after giving Sandhu sufficient time to make the payment.

Bombay High Court says builder “clearly justified in terminating the transaction”

Justice Marne found that the documents did not support Sandhu’s claim that he had actually paid the statutory charges. The court noted that Sandhu was apparently unaware that an e-challan had to be generated after payment and submitted for registration of the agreement.

The court also found that when Sandhu approached the PNB branch to make the payment, the bank had already stopped the relevant service. The amount was eventually returned to his account in January 2020 at his request.

“Thus, from the documents placed on record, it becomes difficult to hold that the allottee actually ever paid stamp duty or registration charges to the concerned authorities,” Justice Marne said.

The court noted that had the charges been paid, specific challans would have been generated and would have been required to be attached to the agreement for sale at the time of execution and registration.

The court therefore held that the builder was “clearly justified in terminating the transaction” and set aside the orders of MahaRERA and the Appellate Tribunal.

Justice Marne observed that the authorities had “grossly erred” in directing the promoter to execute a registered agreement for sale in Sandhu’s favour.

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1HC quashes criminal proceedings against Petit trustees over Tardeo property sale016.7828-09-2026
2HC allows Lawyers Collective to seek settlement of FCRA offence01028-09-2026
3El Supremo respalda las comisiones de apertura de las hipotecas si son claras y proporcionadas09.2628-08-2026
4HC flags Customs, DRI lapses that could lead to acquittal in six international drug smuggling cases08.9227-09-2026
5Agency fined, two others face court over late bond payments07.7422-09-2026
6Madras HC quashes order taking cognisance of ED complaint against drug smuggling accused Jaffer Sadiq06.1226-09-2026
7‘Above the age limit’: ICT professor moves HC against VC’s second term reappointment07.2628-09-2026
8Ils construisent sans autorisation une salle de bain sur leur toit terrasse de 36 m2 : la justice condamne les propriétaires à tout démolir08.4627-09-2026
9Росреестр выступил против отдельного ВРИ для участков под ЦОДы09.0325-09-2026

Классификация: Недвижимость. Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 9. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 6.57. Источник: www.hindustantimes.com.