Redevelopment and Joint Development Agreements: Society Disputes, Termination and the Right Forum

By Bhaskar Subramanian, Partner, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors and Adv. Rahul Jangra, Associate, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors

Published 24 October 2026 · Law stated as on 22 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer

A redevelopment or joint development project sits across at least four bodies of law at once, the cooperative societies statute governing the owners, the contract and development agreement governing the developer, RERA governing the project once flats are sold, and increasingly the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code when the developer itself runs into trouble. Disputes rarely stay inside one of those boxes, and recent rulings have clarified, and in places complicated, which forum actually has the last word.

Two transactions that look alike and are not

The word redevelopment usually describes an existing cooperative housing society, often decades old, demolishing its building and engaging a developer to construct a new one, giving existing members larger flats in the new structure and letting the developer sell the balance, free-sale, area to recover its costs and profit. A joint development agreement, by contrast, typically involves a landowner (who may or may not have any existing structure on the land) contributing the land to a developer who constructs and sells a new project, with the landowner taking either a share of the built-up area, a share of sale proceeds, or a combination of both as consideration for the land.

The legal questions the two raise overlap substantially, who can bind the group, what happens if the developer defaults, how RERA applies, but they are not identical. A redevelopment project is layered on top of an existing cooperative society's internal governance (the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and its rules, for societies in Maharashtra), which imposes its own consent thresholds and procedural requirements before a development agreement can even be signed. A joint development agreement on raw or under-utilised land usually has no equivalent internal-governance layer unless the landowner is itself a cooperative body, a trust, or a group of co-owners, but it raises a sharper question about whether the landowner counts as a promoter or an allottee under RERA, since the landowner is contributing the land rather than paying money for a flat.

This piece works through both structures together where the legal issue is shared (termination, arbitration, the insolvency overlay) and separately where it is not (society consent and deemed conveyance for redevelopment; promoter classification for joint development).

Structuring a redevelopment: the society's internal process

A cooperative housing society in Maharashtra cannot simply have its managing committee sign a development agreement. Redevelopment is treated as a matter requiring the general body's own sanction, and the state government has issued successive sets of guidelines under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 directing registrars and societies on the procedure to follow, most recently through government resolutions dated 3 January 2009 and 4 July 2019, . In 2026 the state went further than a mere restatement: a new Chapter XI-B (Rules 106C-1 to 106C-14) was inserted into the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, notified 18 June 2026 and effective 30 June 2026, converting the earlier GR guidance into statutory rules, permitting members to attend the special general body meeting by video conference, and, following a Registrar circular dated 4 November 2025, removing the requirement for a Registrar no-objection certificate before a developer is selected. Under Clause 12 of the 2019 revised guidelines, a redevelopment resolution needs the backing of at least 51 percent of the society's total membership strength, passed at a special general body meeting convened with a two-thirds quorum; the developer's actual appointment, following a tender or expression-of-interest process (commonly, at least three competing bids or offers as a benchmark of fairness), is likewise approved by that majority at the special general body meeting. Societies in buildings classified as dangerous or requiring urgent structural intervention under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations have historically faced a higher consent bar, up to 70 percent, under the older DCR 33(5)/(7) regime, though the trend in more recent orders has been to bring that threshold down towards the general 51 percent standard applicable to MHADA-classified buildings as well.

The guidelines also address who may take the decision: an elected managing committee, not a registrar-appointed administrator, is expected to steer the process, and societies under administration because of internal disputes have sometimes found their redevelopment plans stalled until regular elections are held. The practical consequence for a dissenting minority of members, typically somewhere between 30 and 49 percent depending on the vote actually achieved, is that once the threshold is validly met, the resolution binds the society as a corporate body, though it does not automatically bind every individual member to every clause of the development agreement, a distinction that becomes important when the agreement contains an arbitration clause (addressed below).

Before the agreement is signed, a competent society will typically also insist on a structural audit confirming the building genuinely needs redevelopment (relevant where a minority later challenges the resolution as premature or commercially unjustified), a feasibility report on the free-sale component the developer proposes to construct, and legal due diligence on the developer's track record, since a developer's capacity to perform, not merely its initial financial offer, is what determines whether the project will actually finish on time.

Deemed conveyance: getting title when the builder will not convey

A separate but related problem, more common in older buildings that are themselves the subject of redevelopment proposals, is that the original promoter never conveyed title to the society in the first place. Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) obliges a promoter to convey title to the cooperative society or other legal body of flat purchasers within four months of its formation, a deadline builders routinely miss for decades.

Section 5A of MOFA designates a competent authority, in practice the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the relevant district, to grant a certificate of deemed conveyance where the promoter has failed to convey title within the statutory period. The society applies with the required documents (land and building records, the registered agreements for sale with individual flat purchasers, and an architect's report establishing the extent of entitlement), accompanied by the prescribed court fee, and the competent authority is required under Section 11(4) to decide within a reasonable time, and in any event not later than six months, after giving the promoter an opportunity to be heard. Once granted, the deemed conveyance has the same legal effect as a conveyance executed by the promoter, and the Supreme Court has held that a writ court should not interfere with an order granting deemed conveyance under Section 11(4) unless it is manifestly illegal, a standard that gives real finality to an order once it is passed.

For a society planning to redevelop, securing deemed conveyance before finalising the development agreement is the safer sequence, since clear title materially strengthens the society's hand in dealing with a developer, in obtaining municipal permissions in its own name, and in resisting any later claim by the original promoter or its successors. A society that proceeds to redevelop without first resolving a title defect risks the incoming developer, or any lender it brings in, discovering the gap midway through construction, at which point the leverage to fix it cheaply has usually been lost.

Does RERA apply, and who is the promoter: the landowner question

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) applies to a project once it meets the registration thresholds under Section 3, and both redevelopment projects and joint development projects are routinely required to register where the area or unit-count thresholds are crossed. The harder question is not whether the project must register, but who, within a redevelopment society or a joint development structure, counts as a promoter with obligations to allottees, as opposed to a landowner or society whose interest is more like that of a beneficiary of the arrangement.

Section 2(zk) of RERA defines promoter broadly and, through its Explanation, treats persons who jointly develop and construct a project, including under a joint development agreement, as jointly and severally liable as promoters for the obligations under the Act, regardless of the internal profit-sharing arrangement between them. The Bombay High Court applied this reasoning squarely against a landowner-developer combination in Wadhwa Group Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Choksi, holding that a joint development promoter who received none of a particular allottee's payment is nonetheless jointly liable, together with the promoter who actually received the money, to refund that allottee under Section 18 of RERA with interest; the Court reasoned that the account into which the funds were deposited is irrelevant to joint liability, and that a narrower reading would let developers route payments to insulate one promoter from a claim that both promoters should answer. The Supreme Court declined to entertain a special leave petition against that ruling by an order dated 8 April 2024, leaving the Bombay High Court's reasoning standing.

Where the question runs the other way, a landowner trying to use RERA as a sword against the developer, the recent trend in state-level Real Estate Appellate Tribunals has gone against the landowner. The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh (decided 8 January 2026), held that a landowner who permits development of their land under a joint arrangement and shares in the project's benefits is not an allottee for RERA purposes and cannot invoke the Act's allottee remedies against the developer; the dispute, the Tribunal reasoned, falls outside RERA's protective scheme because the landowner is properly characterised as a promoter or co-promoter, not a purchaser of a unit. The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reached a materially similar conclusion in Mohammad Mustaq v. Sonali Housing Projects (decided 24 October 2025), treating a landowner who shares in project benefits as a co-promoter rather than an aggrieved person entitled to RERA remedies.

Putting the two lines of authority together produces an asymmetric but coherent-enough picture for now: a landowner under a joint development agreement is generally treated as a promoter for the purpose of liability towards third-party allottees (so cannot escape a buyer's refund claim by pointing to the developer as the party who actually took the money), but is not treated as an allottee for the purpose of claiming RERA remedies against their own development partner (so a landowner's dispute with the developer over area entitlement, construction delay, or quality has to be pursued through the development agreement itself, in a civil suit or arbitration, rather than before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority). Whether a higher court will eventually recognise some intermediate category, a landowner who has handed over possession and received no consideration at all, for instance, has not yet been tested at the Supreme Court level, and the position should be treated as unsettled outside the specific facts these tribunals addressed.

Termination of the development agreement and the position of flat purchasers

Development agreements, whether for a redevelopment or a joint development, typically give the society or landowner a right to terminate if the developer fails to meet construction milestones, fails to pay agreed rent or compensation to displaced members, or otherwise defaults materially. Termination is also where the most consequential disputes arise, because by the time a society or landowner is driven to terminate, the developer has usually already sold some units in the under-construction project to third-party purchasers, who find themselves caught between a developer they paid and a society or landowner that no longer recognises the developer's authority to sell.

The Bombay High Court's approach, across a number of recent rulings, has generally favoured the society or landowner's right to terminate a non-performing developer over the claims of purchasers who bought from that developer after the point at which termination became justified. In a matter reported as Satish Inamdar's appeal against a Maharashtra housing society (Appeal from Order No. 362 of 2024), the Court reaffirmed that flat purchasers who claim through a terminated developer acquire no enforceable rights against the society or against a newly appointed developer, emphasising the binding nature of the underlying development agreement and of any arbitral award already passed between the society and the original developer. In ISON Builders LLP v. Om Sai Ram Co-operative Housing Society (decided 23 January 2026), the Court upheld a termination and refused interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the terminated developer, on facts suggesting the developer was using the project primarily to extract a profit by on-selling its rights to a third developer rather than to actually build and hand over flats.

That said, practitioners should not treat the position as a uniform rule favouring societies in every case. Some commentary and at least one consumer-forum-facing account suggest that a society can itself be held responsible to flat purchasers where it participated in or benefited from a developer's default, a reading in some tension with the straightforward no-privity position in Satish Inamdar and ISON Builders, and the precise circumstances in which a society's own conduct, rather than merely its status as landowner, exposes it to a purchaser's claim have not been authoritatively settled across these differing accounts. A purchaser buying an under-construction unit in a redevelopment or joint development project should, as a matter of basic diligence, confirm directly with the society or landowner, not merely the developer, that the development agreement is current, unterminated, and that the specific unit being sold falls within the developer's allotted free-sale component, rather than relying on the developer's own representations.

A further complication arises where some but not all members of a society consented to a particular accommodation or supplementary agreement signed after the main development agreement. Courts have treated a later accommodation arrangement signed by an individual member as not automatically bringing that member within an arbitration clause contained only in the original development agreement, if the dispute in substance arises from the original agreement rather than from the later document, a point addressed further in the next section.

Arbitration or civil court: the non-signatory member problem

Most development agreements contain an arbitration clause, and developers facing a recalcitrant member or a stalled project frequently reach for Section 9 (interim relief) or Section 11 (appointment of an arbitrator) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against individual members, as well as against the society itself. The Bombay High Court has, with some consistency, refused to extend an arbitration clause in a development agreement to a society member who did not personally sign it, even where the society as an entity is a signatory and even where the member benefits from, or is otherwise affected by, the redevelopment.

The reasoning across these rulings rests on the basic requirement that an arbitration agreement reflects a party's own consent. The courts have held that an arbitration agreement is an expression of the volition and consensus ad idem of the actual contracting parties, so a member who never signed the development agreement cannot be compelled into arbitration under it merely by virtue of society membership, however the clause's wording of "existing members" is read by the developer. A Division Bench has affirmed a single judge's refusal on this basis, holding that disputes between a non-signatory member and the developer could not be referred to arbitration, since the member was never a party to the arbitration agreement in the development agreement, notwithstanding the developer's argument that the clause's reference to the society's members was intended to cover everyone, not merely those who physically signed. In a related line of rulings, the Court has also declined to let a developer use a Section 9 interim application to obtain relief, such as eviction of occupants, against third parties who are not signatories to any arbitration agreement at all, holding that no dispute capable of reference to arbitration exists between the developer and such non-signatory occupants in the first place.

The practical consequence is an awkward bifurcation that developers, societies and their counsel need to plan around at the drafting stage, not discover after a dispute arises: a redevelopment development agreement signed by the society (through its managing committee, following a valid general body resolution) binds the society as an entity and is arbitrable as between the society and the developer, but a dissenting or simply non-signing individual member's personal claims, a declaration of ownership over a specific flat, a challenge to the redevelopment resolution itself, a claim for compensation, generally fall to be litigated in the ordinary civil courts (or, where applicable, the cooperative court having jurisdiction over society disputes under the state's cooperative societies legislation) unless that member has independently and separately agreed to arbitrate. Developers who want certainty on this point should insist, as a condition of signing the development agreement, that every individual member execute a separate adherence or accommodation agreement containing its own arbitration clause, rather than relying on the society-level agreement to bind members who have not personally signed anything.

When the developer itself becomes insolvent

A redevelopment or joint development project can stall for years for reasons entirely outside the society's or landowner's control if the developer runs into financial distress and becomes subject to insolvency proceedings, either its own corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC, or a creditor's enforcement action that effectively freezes its ability to perform. The question that then arises is whether a society that has already terminated its development agreement, and wishes to appoint a new developer, can do so notwithstanding the old developer's insolvency.

The Supreme Court addressed this squarely in A.A. Estates Pvt. Ltd. (through its Resolution Professional) v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (decided 28 November 2025, arising from SLP (C) No. 10758 of 2025). The underlying building, constructed in 1956, had waited for redevelopment for almost two decades while the developer repeatedly failed to deliver; the society issued termination notices in 2019 and again in 2021, well before a fresh corporate insolvency process against the developer began. The Court held that the developer's subsequent insolvency did not revive a development agreement that had already been validly terminated, and that the society's right to engage a new developer and proceed with redevelopment was not defeated by the moratorium or resolution process applicable to the old developer's insolvency, since the society's rights over its own land and building are not an asset of the insolvent developer's estate in the relevant sense once the agreement giving the developer any interest in the project had already come to an end.

The sequencing in that case matters for any society in a similar position: termination before an insolvency filing against the developer stands on much firmer ground than termination attempted after the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC has already taken effect, since the moratorium suspends most proceedings and enforcement actions against the corporate debtor, including, potentially, a termination notice issued or acted upon after the moratorium's commencement, depending on how the specific development agreement and the specific facts are framed. A society concerned about a developer's deteriorating financial position should move promptly, on clear contractual grounds, to terminate before an insolvency application is even filed, rather than waiting to see whether the developer's finances improve, since the legal position becomes considerably harder to protect once the developer is formally inside a CIRP.

Tenants, cessed buildings and the right to timely redevelopment

A distinct category of dispute arises in older, tenanted buildings, commonly cessed buildings in Mumbai subject to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority's repair and reconstruction regime, or private buildings with long-standing tenants under rent control legislation, where redevelopment requires accommodating existing tenants in the reconstructed building rather than simply buying out an owner-occupier's interest. Developers in these projects sometimes have a commercial incentive to delay, since holding costs on a stalled project may be lower than the cost of actually delivering permanent alternate accommodation to a large tenant population, particularly where transit accommodation is being paid for in the interim.

The Bombay High Court addressed this dynamic in a ruling reported in January 2026, holding that tenants' right to timely redevelopment prevails over a developer's commercial interests in managing the pace of a project; the Court's reasoning treated a developer's delay, where not justified by genuine permission or funding constraints, as a breach of the developer's obligations to the tenant body rather than a matter purely within the developer's commercial discretion. The decision sits alongside a broader, longstanding judicial recognition that a tenant displaced for redevelopment has an enforceable right to be rehoused within a reasonable time and to receive transit rent or equivalent compensation for the interim period, rights that courts have been willing to enforce through mandatory orders rather than leaving the tenant to pursue damages alone after years of delay.

Remedies for delay: compensation, rent and the consumer forum route

Where a redevelopment or joint development project is delayed well beyond the agreed timeline, affected members, tenants or third-party purchasers have more than one forum available, and the choice of forum often determines both the speed and the kind of relief obtained. A purchaser who bought a flat under an agreement for sale, whether in a straightforward joint development project or in the free-sale component of a redevelopment, can approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for relief under Section 18 of RERA (refund with interest, or compensation for delay) where the project is RERA-registered, or can approach a consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service, a route the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has continued to entertain even where RERA also applies, treating the two remedies as not mutually exclusive.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has taken a consistently firm line against open-ended delay. It has held, following the Supreme Court's own observations in earlier flat-delay litigation, that a buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession, that a period well beyond what is contractually promised, cases discussing periods of seven years and more have been treated as clearly unreasonable, entitles the buyer to a refund with interest rather than being confined to waiting out further delay, and that a developer's admission that it is already providing alternate accommodation to affected residents at its own cost can be taken into account in assessing both the developer's own view of its liability and the appropriate quantum of compensation. In one 2025 ruling, the Commission ordered a full refund with 9 percent interest to a group of buyers over chronic project delay, with the rate stepping up to 12 percent if payment was not made within the period allowed, an illustration of how firmly the forum is prepared to act once default is established.

A society's existing members displaced during redevelopment occupy a different position again, since they are not, strictly, purchasers under an agreement for sale but beneficiaries under the development agreement between the society and the developer; their remedy for a developer's failure to pay promised rent or to deliver the reconstructed flat on time typically lies in a civil suit for specific performance or damages against the developer (and, depending on the development agreement's terms, against the society itself for failing to enforce the agreement), or in arbitration if the society's own agreement with the developer provides for it, rather than before RERA or a consumer forum, which are generally oriented towards a purchaser-promoter relationship rather than a landowner-developer one. Limitation is a genuine trap in these disputes: a claim for breach of a development agreement is generally governed by the three-year period under Article 54 or the residual Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, depending on how the claim is framed, running from the date the cause of action (typically, the contractually agreed completion date, or the date of an unequivocal repudiation such as a termination notice) arises, and members who wait too long hoping the developer will eventually perform risk losing their civil remedy entirely even though the equitable merits of their position may be strong.

Drafting and compliance checklist for a redevelopment or joint development agreement

A development agreement that is well drafted at the outset avoids the great majority of disputes this article describes, since most of the litigation traced above traces back to gaps the agreement itself could have closed. The following points deserve specific attention, whether acting for a society, a landowner, or a developer.

Consent and authority need to be documented before signing, not assumed: the society's counsel should independently verify that the general body resolution approving redevelopment and appointing the specific developer was passed with the correct quorum and majority under the applicable state guidelines (51 percent of total membership and a two-thirds quorum, under Maharashtra's current framework), that the resolution was not passed by an administrator where an elected committee was required, and that the minutes and attendance records are preserved, since a later challenge to the resolution's validity can unravel the entire project years into construction.

Milestones and the consequences of missing them should be specific and self-executing rather than left to later negotiation: construction milestones tied to calendar dates (not vague phrases such as "reasonable time"), a clearly quantified daily or monthly compensation for delay beyond the agreed date, an unambiguous right to terminate on a defined cure period following default, and, critically, an obligation on the developer to maintain the transit rent or alternate accommodation payments current as a condition precedent to any extension of time being granted.

The arbitration clause needs to anticipate the non-signatory problem rather than ignore it: if the parties intend every member to be bound to arbitrate disputes arising from the development, the agreement (or a standalone adherence agreement) should be executed individually by each member, not merely by the society as an entity, given the Bombay High Court's consistent refusal to bind non-signing members to a clause they never personally agreed to.

Title and conveyance status should be resolved, or at least disclosed and allocated by risk, before the agreement is finalised: a society that has not yet obtained deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA should either obtain it before signing or build an express condition precedent into the development agreement requiring the developer to assist in, and fund, the deemed conveyance process as an early-stage obligation, since an unresolved title defect discovered mid-construction is far harder and costlier to fix.

RERA registration and promoter classification should be settled in writing between the parties themselves, even though that allocation cannot bind a third-party allottee or the regulator: the development agreement should specify who is registering the project as promoter, how joint and several liability to allottees under Section 18 will be apportioned as between the parties inter se (recognising, per Wadhwa Group v. Vijay Choksi, that this apportionment has no effect on an allottee's right to claim against either promoter), and what information-sharing and cooperation obligations apply to RERA compliance through the project's life.

Finally, an exit mechanism for genuine deadlock should be built in rather than left to litigation: a buyout formula, an independent valuation mechanism, and a defined process for appointing a replacement developer if termination becomes necessary, mirroring the kind of relief courts have had to fashion after the fact in disputes such as Kher Nagar Sukhsadan, reduce the time and cost of resolving a breakdown considerably if it is addressed at the drafting stage rather than invented under litigation pressure years later.

Where the law remains unsettled

Several questions in this area do not yet have a single, settled answer across the reported decisions. Whether a landowner under a joint development agreement can ever be treated as something other than a pure promoter for RERA purposes, for instance where the landowner has handed over possession of the land and received no part of the agreed consideration at all, has not been tested at the Supreme Court level, and the Madhya Pradesh and Telangana appellate tribunal rulings, while consistent with each other, bind only within their own states and have not been reviewed by a constitutional court.

The exact boundary between a society's own liability to a purchaser who bought from a terminated developer, as opposed to the purchaser having no remedy at all against anyone but the defaulting developer, is not fully reconciled across the different accounts in circulation, and a party relying on the no-privity position taken in rulings such as Satish Inamdar's appeal should not assume every court will take the same view where the society's own conduct is shown to have facilitated or benefited from the developer's default.

How far the Kher Nagar Sukhsadan reasoning extends to a termination attempted after a developer's insolvency moratorium has already commenced, rather than before it, as happened on those particular facts, is also open; a society facing a developer sliding towards insolvency should not assume it retains the same freedom to terminate once a CIRP is formally underway, and should seek urgent legal advice on the specific sequencing of its own facts rather than relying on this decision as a general license to terminate at any stage of a developer's financial distress.

And the precise content of a tenant's or displaced member's right to timely redevelopment, as distinct from a developer's ordinary contractual obligations, continues to be worked out case by case rather than through a single settled test, with courts so far preferring fact-specific findings of unreasonable delay over any fixed outer time limit beyond which delay is automatically treated as a breach.

Redevelopment and joint development projects in India sit at the intersection of cooperative society law, contract, RERA and, increasingly, insolvency law, and disputes in this space rarely resolve neatly within any single one of those frameworks. The practical lesson from the last two years of rulings is that courts are willing to protect a society's or landowner's right to terminate a non-performing developer and move on, but are equally firm that a development agreement's arbitration clause binds only those who actually signed it, and that a landowner's own classification as promoter or allottee under RERA depends heavily on the specific arrangement rather than on how the parties choose to label it.

For a society, landowner or developer entering a new project, the single most effective protection against the disputes this article describes is not a cleverer litigation strategy after the fact but a development agreement that anticipates them: documented consent at the correct threshold, enforceable milestones with real consequences for delay, an arbitration clause that actually covers everyone the parties intend it to cover, and title resolved before, not during, construction.

Frequently Asked Questions

References & Further Reading

The provisions, rulings and official documents below were relied on for this article, which states the law as on 22 October 2026. The position can change with amendments, rules and later decisions, so check the current text before acting on any of it.

1. Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, Sections 5A, 11
2. Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Section 79A
3. Government Resolutions on redevelopment of cooperative housing society buildings issued under Section 79A, dated 3 January 2009 and 4 July 2019 (and a further 2026 order largely restating the 2019 position)
4. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Sections 2(zk), 3, 18
5. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 8, 9, 11
6. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 (moratorium)
7. Consumer Protection Act, 2019
8. Limitation Act, 1963, Articles 54 and 113
9. Wadhwa Group Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Choksi, Bombay High Court; special leave petition dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 8 April 2024
10. Bhopal Development Authority v. Roop Laxmi Singh, Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, decided 8 January 2026
11. Mohammad Mustaq v. Sonali Housing Projects, Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, decided 24 October 2025
12. Satish Inamdar's appeal against a Maharashtra housing society, Bombay High Court, Appeal from Order No. 362 of 2024
13. ISON Builders LLP v. Om Sai Ram Co-operative Housing Society, Bombay High Court, decided 23 January 2026
14. A.A. Estates Pvt. Ltd. (through its Resolution Professional) v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Supreme Court, decided 28 November 2025 (arising from SLP (C) No. 10758 of 2025)
15. Bombay High Court ruling on tenants' right to timely redevelopment over a developer's commercial interests, reported January 2026
16. Nissa Hoosain Nensey and Ors. v. Pali Hill Neptune CHSL and Ors., Bombay High Court (non-signatory member arbitration dispute)
17. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order awarding refund with 9 percent interest over chronic project delay (Mantra Lifestyle Homes buyers), reported 9 October 2025

Related reading on this site

• Joint development agreement real estate tax guide
• Deemed conveyance housing society guide
• Housing society redevelopment state policy guide
• Rera ten years india homebuyer remedies article
• Manas shelters vivek pittie bombay hc summary judgment tardeo redevelopment
• Nclt mumbai spenta enclave rera refund resolution plan