Rare Township Pvt Ltd SNG and Partners vs Saji Mathews — SA/144/2026

Case under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 58. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010133142026

e-Filing Number

16-03-2026

Filing Number

SA/7697/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

SA/144/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 24-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 58
C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rare Township Pvt Ltd SNG and Partners

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Saji Mathews

  2. 2.Simmy Saji

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed a real estate promoter's appeal, upholding that allottees are entitled to interest on delayed flat possession under RERA 2016 Section 18, even when delays result from regulatory approvals or statutory restrictions. The court rejected the promoter's force majeure and moratorium defenses, finding that ordinary development delays cannot qualify as force majeure, and that the agreed possession date predated COVID-19 by 15 months, making pandemic moratorium unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/144/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed a real estate promoter's appeal, upholding that allottees are entitled to interest on delayed flat possession under RERA 2016 Section 18, even when delays result from regulatory approvals or statutory restrictions. The court rejected the promoter's force majeure and moratorium defenses, finding that ordinary development delays cannot qualify as force majeure, and that the agreed possession date predated COVID-19 by 15 months, making pandemic moratorium unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case