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.
CNR: HCBM010199052026
e-Filing Number
18-04-2026
Filing Number
SA/11575/2026
Filing Date
18-04-2026
Registration No
SA/230/2026
Registration Date
29-04-2026
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
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RARE TOWNSHIP PVT LTD SATYAKI LAW ASSOCIATES
Respondent(s)
KARTHIK VELAMAKANNI
MADHAVI KAIVALYA KANDALAM
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
FRESH ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts