RARE TOWNSHIP PVT LTD SATYAKI LAW ASSOCIATES vs KARTHIK VELAMAKANNI — SA/230/2026

Case under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 58. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010199052026

e-Filing Number

18-04-2026

Filing Number

SA/11575/2026

Filing Date

18-Apr-2026

Registration No

SA/230/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-Jun-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 SATYAKI LAW ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KARTHIK VELAMAKANNI

  2. 2.MADHAVI KAIVALYA KANDALAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed Rare Township Pvt Ltd's second appeal challenging the Appellate Tribunal's stay of the Authority's order permitting cancellation of the real estate agreement under RERA Act Section 11(5). The court held that allottees possess an indefeasible right to seek refunds under Section 18 of the RERA Act and that seeking refund does not preclude them from challenging termination; executing the cancellation order during appeal would render the appeal infructuous, so no substantial question of law arises for consideration in an interim appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/230/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed Rare Township Pvt Ltd's second appeal challenging the Appellate Tribunal's stay of the Authority's order permitting cancellation of the real estate agreement under RERA Act Section 11(5). The court held that allottees possess an indefeasible right to seek refunds under Section 18 of the RERA Act and that seeking refund does not preclude them from challenging termination; executing the cancellation order during appeal would render the appeal infructuous, so no substantial question of law arises for consideration in an interim appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case