Bombay High Court To Examine If Non-Advertised Project Need Mandatory RERA Registration

The Bombay High Court has stayed a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order requiring a builder to register two additional wings of its real estate project in Maharashtra, noting that the central issue of whether registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act becomes mandatory when no units are advertised or offered for sale requires examination.

Justice Arun R Pedneker made this observation on November 25, 2025 while issuing notice in the second appeals filed by Goldendreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, a promoter of the Flamingo project. The Appelllate tribunal order had required Goldendreams to register “B” and “C” wing of the “Flamingo” Project which was not yet advertised. The court said that whether such a registration is mandated when the wings are not yet advertised needs to be examined.

“Whether the promoter has to mandatorily register a project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, despite the promoter not advertising or selling units in the project?”, the court said.

The court also restrained Goldendreams Buildcon from advertising or selling units in wings B and C until they are registered.

The appeals arise from a complaint filed by Saffron Infradev before MahaRERA seeking registration of the two wings or a refund of the money claimed to have been paid. MahaRERA rejected the complaint in August 2019 after holding that Saffron Infradev could not be treated as an allottee and was a joint promoter of the Flamingo project.

The Appellate Tribunal later partly allowed the appeal and directed registration of the entire project within 60 days, with penalties for non-compliance under Section 59.

Goldendreams Buildcon challenged this order before the High Court. The promoter argued that Section 3 of the Act requires registration only when a promoter advertises, markets, books, sells or offers units for sale. It submitted that no such activity took place with respect to wings B and C and that the Tribunal had incorrectly assumed that the entire project had been advertised.

After hearing the submissions, the court held that the matter raises substantial questions of law. These include whether a promoter must register unadvertised phases of a project, whether the tribunal relied on facts inconsistent with pleadings in a related commercial suit, whether the findings on registration were perverse and whether the tribunal erred in overturning MahaRERA's order without holding it perverse.

The stay on the tribunal's directions will remain in effect until the next hearing, when the Court will also consider any request to modify or vacate the interim relief.