Pune: MahaRERA Directs Adani Group’s Esteem Constructions to Refund Homebuyer in Atelier Greens Project

Koregaon Park, 11th July 2026: In a significant ruling concerning the luxury residential sector, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has partly allowed a refund plea by a homebuyer in Adani Group’s “Atelier Greens” project in Pune, while dismissing two other delayed possession complaints as premature.

The order, passed on July 9, 2026, by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, resolved a series of cross-complaints involving homebuyers and the promoter, Esteem Constructions Private Limited (Adani Group). The dispute centered around flats in the “Atelier Greens” project (MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100018596), located in Pune.

Homebuyer Granted Refund for Flat 402, Interest Denied Due to Delayed Action
The primary complaint was filed by Monika Verma and Amit Kumar (Complaint No. CC12502811), who booked Flat in Wing/Tower C on March 18, 2021, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,58,67,100/-. Having already paid Rs. 2,33,72,920/-, the buyers sought a full refund with interest and an additional Rs. 15 lakh in compensation, citing delayed possession and incomplete premium amenities (such as a glass facade and green balconies).

According to the registered Agreement for Sale, the possession date was slated for March 30, 2024, with a six-month grace period ending on September 30, 2024. The promoter failed to hand over possession within this timeline, prompting the buyers to stop further payments.

In its judgment, MahaRERA observed that:
The developer obtained a Part Occupancy Certificate (OC) from the Pune Municipal Corporation on July 15, 2025, and formally offered possession to the buyers on August 1, 2025.
The homebuyers did not seek cancellation or refund within a reasonable period after the September 2024 delay, choosing instead to file their complaint on August 11, 2025—after the Part OC had already been issued.
Consequently, MahaRERA ruled that while the buyers are entitled to withdraw from the project, they cannot claim interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The Verdict: MahaRERA directed Esteem Constructions to refund the amount paid by Monika Verma and Amit Kumar (excluding statutory taxes, stamp duty, and registration charges paid to government authorities) without interest, within 60 days. The homebuyers must clear any outstanding bank liens/mortgages on the flat, and both parties are ordered to register a cancellation deed once the refund is executed.
Two delayed possession complaints dismissed as “Premature”
In contrast, MahaRERA dismissed two other complaints seeking interest for delayed possession, ruling that the contractual timelines had not yet been breached.

The complaints were filed by:
Lathika Hinduja (Complaint No. CC12600388), owner of a flat (total consideration: Rs. 1,71,78,813/-).
Shweta Bhavin Modi (Complaint No. CC12600390), owner of a flat (total consideration: Rs. 1,71,78,813/-).
Both buyers filed their complaints on January 21, 2026, claiming interest for delayed possession from October 1, 2025.

However, the regulatory authority noted that the registered Agreements for Sale for both flats stipulated a possession date of September 30, 2025, with a one-year grace period, extending the valid contractual timeline to September 30, 2026. Furthermore, the developer had already secured a Part Occupancy Certificate applicable to these flats on September 30, 2025.

The Verdict: Because the contractual possession date of September 30, 2026, had not yet lapsed, MahaRERA declared both complaints premature and dismissed them.
Promoter’s Counter-Complaint Disposed Of MahaRERA also resolved a counter-complaint filed by the promoter, Esteem Constructions Private Limited (Complaint No. CC12602317), against Monika Verma and Amit Kumar. The developer had sought to penalize the buyers for failing to take possession of the flat and requested either the payment of outstanding dues (Rs. 69,94,677/- plus accrued interest) or the formal termination of the agreement.

The Authority ruled that because the primary rights and liabilities of both parties had already been settled under Monika Verma’s refund complaint, no independent cause of action survived. The developer’s counter-complaint was subsequently disposed of without further adjudication.

No orders were made regarding legal costs for any of the parties involved.