MahaRERA Pune imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on Sai Enterprises and Super Construction for failing to comply with an earlier order directing them to allot a flat and execute a registered Agreement for Sale. The 8 October 2026 penalty is specific to the enforcement dispute brought by Madhu Alvani and Bina Kamal Khiani; it is not an automatic penalty for every unallotted or delayed flat. Separately, the authority directed recovery for the homebuyers of interest on their ₹17.49 lakh payment and ₹20,000 in costs.
What MahaRERA ordered
In an order signed on 8 October 2026, Adjudicating Officer R.K. Malabade found that Sai Enterprises and Super Construction had not complied with an earlier MahaRERA final order. The enforcement case concerns project registration P51800015798, Sethia Imperial Avenue, previously known as Sun Gates. The order imposed a lump-sum penalty of ₹10,00,000 under Section 63, payable to MahaRERA within two months. If it is not paid, the order provides for recovery by warrant under Section 40(1). Read the signed order and report.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Essentials of Practical Real Estate Law | $80.58 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Property Law For Dummies | $22.31 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
National Real Estate Salesperson License Exam Prep: Everything You Need to Become a Real Estate... | $29.69 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The officer also directed a recovery warrant to the concerned District Collector for the interest accrued under the earlier order and ₹20,000 in complaint costs. Those amounts are for the complainants, not part of the ₹10 lakh penalty. The Collector was directed to submit a compliance report to MahaRERA.
What the earlier order required
The earlier final order, dated 31 October 2025, directed the respondents to allot a flat with 795 square feet of carpet area and execute a registered Agreement for Sale within 45 days. The direction was subject to payment of any balance consideration due under the 29 May 2010 allotment letter.
#1 Best Overall
It also directed the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay simple interest on ₹17,49,000 from 24 June 2012 until possession, at the rate prescribed by Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules. Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay ₹20,000 in complaint costs. The 2026 enforcement order addressed the failure to comply with these directions, including the non-payment of interest.
The homebuyers’ case and the respondents’ arguments
What the homebuyers said
Alvani and Khiani said they booked Flat B07 in Wing B for ₹43,72,500 and paid ₹17,49,000. They said possession was due by 23 June 2012. According to their account recorded in the order, Super Construction later said it could not continue construction and directed them to approach Sai Enterprises for a refund. They declined the refund and sought the flat instead.
Rank #2
What the respondents argued
Sai Enterprises argued that it had no contractual relationship with the homebuyers, had received no money from them, and that the claimed flat did not exist in its registered project. Super Construction relied on an architect’s certificate dated 19 January 2026, arguing that approximately 480 square feet of carpet area corresponded to the claimed 795 square feet of saleable or super built-up area. It also said a review application was pending. These were the respondents’ positions; they should not be read as findings that displaced the earlier final order.
Why the order addressed enforcement and recovery
The officer concluded that the earlier final order had not been followed. The order also recorded that all flats had been sold and none allotted to the complainants. In those circumstances, the officer said a fit and proper person could not be appointed under MahaRERA Circular No. 50 to execute the agreement. The 2026 order therefore imposed the Section 63 penalty for non-compliance and directed recovery of the sums owed to the homebuyers.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Who receives each amount
| Amount or direction | Purpose and recipient |
|---|---|
| ₹10,00,000 | Case-specific penalty under Section 63, payable by the respondents to MahaRERA within two months. |
| Interest on ₹17,49,000 from 24 June 2012 | Amount directed under the earlier order for the complainants, with recovery assigned to the concerned District Collector. |
| ₹20,000 | Complaint costs for the complainants, also subject to recovery through the District Collector. |
The order does not state the final rupee total of accrued interest. The ₹43,72,500 consideration and ₹17,49,000 payment are figures recorded in the complainants’ account of the transaction; they are not general RERA benchmarks.
What this decision does—and does not—establish
This is an enforcement outcome in one dispute after an earlier order required allotment, an agreement, interest and costs. It does not establish that every failure to allot a flat results in a ₹10 lakh penalty, nor does the penalty itself compensate the homebuyers: it is payable to MahaRERA, while the interest and costs are separately recoverable for them.
The reviewed materials do not establish whether the penalty was later paid, whether the recovery warrants were executed, whether a review or appeal changed the outcome, or how much interest was ultimately recovered. The signed order text is hosted by LiveLawBiz rather than on MahaRERA’s official domain; separate reports are available from LawStreet and LiveLawBiz.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
