A tribunal hearing a flat buyer’s appeal can ask for a deposit above 10% of the price as the cost of interim relief, because RERA’s 10% ceiling restrains what a promoter may accept before a registered sale agreement, not what a tribunal may order. The Bombay High Court has upheld a ₹38.18 crore deposit condition in a Palais Royale dispute and left the buyer’s underlying claims open.
Mumbai: A flat allottee in the Palais Royale project at Worli must deposit ₹38.18 crore if he wants status quo protection over his flat, the Bombay High Court has held, dismissing his challenge to the condition and ruling that a RERA tribunal can seek a deposit above 10% for interim relief [Sachin Bajla v. Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Another].
Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment on November 5, 2026. It separates two things that the buyer had run together: the restriction on promoters under Section 13(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the discretion of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to attach conditions when it grants interim relief.
What the 10% rule restricts, and what it does not
Bajla argued that the tribunal could not demand more than the statutory ceiling when no registered sale agreement existed. He also wanted claimed interest on the money he had already paid to count towards the amount attributable to him. Honest Shelters defended the condition as a way of testing his willingness and financial capacity to complete the purchase.
The Court explained that Section 13(1) shields buyers from large unsecured advances by barring promoters from accepting more than 10% of the price before a written sale agreement is signed and registered. That bar is about the promoter’s receipt of money. It says nothing about an adjudicatory deposit ordered by a tribunal.
Reading Sections 44(3) and 53 together, the Court held that the tribunal may balance the parties’ interests through conditions on interim protection, and that the right figure turns on the circumstances rather than a fixed 10% limit. Paragraph 49 answers the main legal questions on that footing, permitting deposits above the threshold for interim relief.
On the facts, the Court noted that an occupancy certificate for the flat was issued in December 2024 and that the full sale consideration was payable. It saw no reason to disturb the tribunal’s decision to ask for the initial contractual tranche as the price of continued protection.
From a 2010 allotment letter to a 2022 termination
In January 2010, Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited issued Bajla an allotment letter for a flat priced at ₹76.36 crore. The letter called for an initial ₹38.18 crore for execution and registration of the sale agreement. Bajla paid ₹5.51 crore in instalments between January 2010 and July 2011.
The original developer later faced winding-up proceedings, and the lender enforced its security. Honest Shelters bought the property at auction and stepped in as promoter. In October 2022 it terminated Bajla’s allotment and offered to refund the ₹5.51 crore he had paid.
Bajla contested the termination. MahaRERA dismissed his complaint in April 2024, reasoning that the allotment had already been terminated and no allottee-promoter relationship survived. His appeal reached the tribunal, which granted conditional status quo in August 2024 on the footing of the ₹38.18 crore deposit.
Questions the Court left for the main appeal
The ₹12.01 crore in claimed interest could not be treated as an established credit at this stage, the Court said. Whether Honest Shelters actually owed it needed adjudication and could not be presumed.
Nor did the Court rule on whether MahaRERA was right to turn away the complaint after the allotment was cancelled. That belongs to the main appeal before the tribunal, and the High Court’s review stayed within the interim condition.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Says Later TDR Cannot Dilute Housing Society’s Recreation-Ground Share
Two weeks to deposit, and no interim cover meanwhile
Having dismissed the second appeal, the Court declined to continue its own interim protection. It did give Bajla two weeks to deposit the amount the tribunal had directed. If he does, the tribunal’s status quo order will carry on during the main appeal.
The Court also made clear that Bajla could pursue that appeal without interim relief. The deposit is a condition of protection over the flat, not a requirement for keeping the appeal alive. The decision rests on prima facie findings that will not bind the tribunal when it decides the main appeal.
Case: Sachin Bajla v. Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sunil Girdharilal Mittal
Number: Second Appeal No. 534 of 2024
Court and Bench: Bombay High Court; Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision: November 5, 2026; reserved October 26, 2026
Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45353
Outcome: Second appeal dismissed; ₹38.18 crore interim deposit condition upheld; underlying merits remain open.