M R GURU PRASAD vs HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
- Court
- Kerala High Court
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1058 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN WP(C) NO.36488 OF 2024 OF THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5:
1 PRASANTH B
AGED 41 YEARS
17/156, THEKKEGRAMAM POST, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678103
2 THUSHARAA P V
AGED 34 YEARS
17/156, THEKKEGRAMAM POST, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678103
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 2
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 AND
6 TO 11:
1 HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
AGED 56 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
JIBU K.K. NO. 104, GROUND FLOOR, INFANTRY TECHNO PARK,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN - 560001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN,
NANTHANCOD, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695003
4 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 5TH FLOOR,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
5 E.V. MATHAI & SONS
EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
E.M. JOHNY,
PIN - 686691
6 E.M. PAUL
S/O E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
7 JOSE MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
8 E.M. JOHNNY
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
9 TOMY MATHEW
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 3
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
10 KERALA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KURUVI BUILDING,
ST VINCENT ROAD, NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION
PIN - 682018
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
BY ADVS
ADV. E.K NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR COUNSEL)
ADV. SAIJO HASSAN
ADV. NANDAGOPAL S KURUP, SC FOR R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
02.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1059/2026, 1060/2026 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1059 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.36503 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
BABU AHMMED KABIR
AGED 78 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, 12A, ALDEBARAN,
KOTTAPURAM ROAD, PUMKUNNAM P.O, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680002
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
JIBU K.K. NO. 104, GROUND FLOOR,
INFANTRY TECHNO PARK, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN,
NANTHANCOD, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 5
4 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 5TH FLOOR,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
5 E.V. MATHAI & SONS
EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, E.M. JOHNY,
PIN - 686691
6 E.M. PAUL
S/O E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
7 JOSE MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
8 E.M. JOHNNY
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
9 TOMY MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
10 KERALA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KURUVI BUILDING,
ST VINCENT ROAD, NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION,
PIN - 682018
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
BY ADVS
ADV. E.K NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR COUNSEL)
ADV. SAIJO HASSAN
ADV. NANDAGOPAL S KURUP, SC FOR R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
02.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1058/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1060 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.35451 OF
2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1:
EMILY EASO
AGED 56 YEARS
A/33, KRANTI TOWER, SHREENAGAR, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE,
MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400604
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 7:
1 M/S HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, JIBU K.K. NO.
104, GROUND FLOOR, INFANTRY TECHNO PARK, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE, PIN - 560001
2 E.V. MATHAI & SONS
EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 7
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
E.M. JOHNY, PIN - 686691
3 E.M. PAUL
S/O E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
4 JOSE MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
5 E.M. JOHNNY
S/O. E.V.MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
6 TOMY MATHEW
S/O. E.V.MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
7 KERALA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KURUVI BUILDING, ST
VINCENT ROAD, NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION, PIN - 682018
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
BY ADVS.
ADV. E.K NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR COUNSEL)
ADV. NANDAGOPAL S KURUP, SC FOR R3
ADV. SAIJO HASSAN
ADV. BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
ADV. ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY
ADV. SANGEETH MOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
02.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1058/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1063 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.36421 OF
2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5:
1 PRAMOD BALAN
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. LATE BALAN A, FLAT NO.11A,
VARMADRPAI'S HERITAGE, SASTHRI NAGAR, PAI ROAD,
POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695012
2 NIMISHA PRAMOD
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. PRAMODBALAN, FLAT NO.11A,
VARMADRPAI'S HERITAGE, SASTHRI NAGAR, PAI ROAD,
POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 9
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO 3 AND
6 TO 10:
1 HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
JIBU K.K. NO. 104, GROUND FLOOR,
INFANTRY TECHNO PARK, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE, PIN - 560001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 5TH FLOOR,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCOD, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
4 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 5TH FLOOR,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
5 E.V. MATHAI & SONS
EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
E.M. JOHNY,
PIN - 686691
6 E.M. PAUL
S/O E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686691
7 JOSE MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686691
8 E.M. JOHNNY
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 10
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686691
9 TOMY MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
10 KERALA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KURUVI BUILDING,
ST VINCENT ROAD, NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION,
PIN - 682018
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
BY ADVS
ADV. E.K NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR COUNSEL)
ADV. SAIJO HASSAN
ADV. NANDAGOPAL S KURUP, SC FOR R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
02.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1058/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1064 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.36658 OF
2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5:
1 RAVINDRA P NAIR
AGED 68 YEARS
G-44, MAHINDRA PARK, OPPO. NAVAL DEPOT,
NARAYAN NAGAR, LBS MARG, GHATKOPAR (W),
MUMBAI, PIN - 400086
2 SUJATHA R NAIR
AGED 63 YEARS
G-44, MAHINDRA PARK, OPPO. NAVAL DEPOT,
NARAYAN NAGAR, LBS MARG, GHATKOPAR (W),
MUMBAI, PIN - 400086
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 12
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 AND
6 TO 10:
1 HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
JIBU K.K. NO. 104, GROUND FLOOR,
INFANTRY TECHNO PARK,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN - 560001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 5TH FLOOR,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCOD, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
4 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER
KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE,
KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
5 E.V. MATHAI & SONS
EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
E.M. JOHNY, PIN - 686691
6 E.M. PAUL
S/O E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
7 JOSE MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
8 E.M. JOHNNY
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
9 TOMY MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 13
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
10 KERALA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
KURUVI BUILDING, ST VINCENT ROAD,
NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION,
PIN - 682018
(SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)
BY ADVS.
ADV. E.K NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR COUNSEL)
ADV. SAIJO HASSAN
ADV. NANDAGOPAL S KURUP, SC FOR R3
ADV. BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
ADV. ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY
ADV. SANGEETH MOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
02.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1058/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1076 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.36492 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND 5:
1 M R GURU PRASAD
AGED 58 YEARS
FLAT NO.202, GARDEN GATE APARTMENT, MAVELI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
2 G N JAYA LAKSHMI
AGED 64 YEARS
FLAT NO.202, GARDEN GATE APARTMENT, MAVELI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 15
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 AND
6 TO 11:
1 HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
JIBU K.K., NO. 104, GROUND FLOOR,
INFANTRY TECHNO PARK,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN,
NANTHANCOD, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
4 THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCOD,
KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
5 E.V. MATHAI & SONS
EDAKKATTUKUYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
E.M. JOHNY,
PIN - 686691
6 E.M. PAUL
S/O E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686691
7 JOSE MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686691
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 16
8 E.M. JOHNNY
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686691
9 TOMY MATHEW
S/O. E.V. MATHAI, EDAKKATTUKUYIL,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
BY ADV
ADV. E.K NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR COUNSEL)
ADV. SAIJO HASSAN
ADV. NANDAGOPAL S KURUP, SC FOR R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
02.06.2026, ALONG WITH WA.1058/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 17
"CR"
COMMON JUDGMENT
[ WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060, 1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026]
These Writ Appeals have been preferred challenging the common order dated
24.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 35451,
36421, 36488, 36492, 36503 and 36658 of 2024. By the said order, as an interim
measure, the learned Single Judge permitted the writ petitioner who is a
promoter/builder, to make payment of the pre-deposit as mandated under the
proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (Act 16 of 2016), calculated on the basis of the Marginal
Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) prevailing as on the date of passing of the
order. The said order is under challenge in these intra-court appeals filed under
Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
2. Before dealing with the contentions, it would be profitable to refer to
the facts which led the writ petitioner to approach this Court.
3. As identical issues are involved, for the sake of clarity, W.A.No. 1063 of
2026 shall be taken as the lead case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as
"allottee/buyer" and "promoter/builder" as the case may be.
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 18
4. The allottees/buyers of a housing project by name “Hoysala EVM”
apartments approached RERA and filed separate complaints. The gist of the
allegations in the complaint are as under.
a) M/s. Hoysala Projects Pvt. Ltd. is the promoter/builder who entered into
a Joint Venture Agreement with the other respondents for the development of a
housing project by name “Hoysala EVM”. The allottees/buyers agreed to purchase
apartments in the said project each measuring approximately 962 sq.ft. An
agreement for sale and construction was entered into on 28.10.2013, as per which
the project was to be completed and handed over within a period of 36 months, i.e.,
by October, 2016. The total sale consideration of Rs. 38,24,396/- was transferred to
the builder. The allottees/buyers contended that the construction was not carried out
as per specifications, and the project was not completed. In the said circumstances,
legal notice was issued on 14.07.2021. Thereafter, separate complaints were lodged
seeking issuance of directions to the builder to complete and hand over the
apartment with covered car parking, after completing the common areas and
amenities, and to execute the conveyance deed.
b) The RERA, after evaluation of the materials, came to the conclusion
that the allottees/buyers had remitted a total amount of Rs.34,02,496/- before the
assured date of completion, i.e., on 28.10.2016, and that thereafter, the balance
amount, thus totalling Rs.38,24,396/-. Taking note of the above, it was held that the
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 19
promoter/builder is liable to pay interest to the allottees/buyers as per the proviso to
Section 18(1) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The authority
took note that as per Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2018, the rate of interest payable by the promoter/builder shall
be State Bank of India's Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BMPLR) plus 2% and shall
be computed as simple interest. Holding so, the authority directed the
promoter/builder to pay simple interest at 16.85% per annum on the amounts paid,
calculated from the dates of payment. The authority also directed that if the amounts
were not paid, the allottees/buyers were at liberty to recover the amount from the
promoter/builder and its assets by initiating execution.
c) Being aggrieved, separate appeals were preferred by the
promoter/builder before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Along with
the appeal, an application was filed purportedly under the proviso to Section 43(5) of
Act 16 of 2016, seeking exemption from depositing 30% of the
penalty/compensation and to hear the appeal on its merits.
d) The Tribunal considered the request for exemption and also the
objection filed by the allottees/buyers and dismissed the application, holding that the
proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act 16 of 2016 mandates that for entertaining an
appeal filed by a promoters/builders against any order, directing payment of money
or penalty, the promoters/builders will have to deposit 30% of the amount of penalty
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 20
ordered by the authority or the full amount otherwise ordered by way of interest or
by way of compensation with the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal further
held that the proviso does not permit any discretion or relaxation in the matter of
deposit. As the order under challenge was an order directing payment of interest, in
order to proceed with the appeal, the promoters/builders would have to make
deposit of the entire amount due as on the date of the impugned order.
5. Challenging the said order, separate Writ Petitions were filed before this
Court. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge,
taking note of the nature of the contentions raised in the Writ Petitions, an interim
order was passed directing the Appellate Authority to retain the appeals on file. The
said order was challenged before this Court by the allottees/buyers, and this Court,
taking note of the fact that the order passed by the RERA had not been stayed,
observed that the aggrieved party could approach the Appellate Authority and seek
implementation of the order. Immediately thereafter, an application was filed to
amend the Writ Petitions, seeking a declaration that Rule 18, insofar as it prescribes
the BMPLR for calculation of interest, is ultra vires the provisions of Act 16 of 2016,
and to incorporate the Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) in Rule 18
of the Rules, 2018. Thereafter, the interim order impugned herein was passed on
24.03.2026, directing the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal by calculating
interest at the MCLR rate. The said order is under challenge.
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 21
6. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents as instructed by Sri. Saijo Hassan, the learned
counsel.
7. Sri. K.Shaj, the learned counsel advanced the following submissions:
a. Section 43 of Act 16 of 2016 mandates that any person aggrieved by
any direction or decision or order made by the Authority may prefer an appeal before
the Appellate Tribunal and the same shall be entertained only on deposit of the total
amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on
him before the said appeal is heard. Rule 18 of the Kerala RERA Rules, 2018
expressly prescribes SBI's BMPLR plus 2% as the benchmark for calculating interest.
By directing computation on the basis of MCLR instead, the Single Judge has, in
substance, substituted the Statutory Rules with general guidelines issued by the
Reserve Bank to Banks. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge
clearly erred in carrying out such an exercise.
b. The learned counsel urged that the retention of BMPLR in the Rule was
a conscious legislative policy choice and not an oversight. The RBI introduced MCLR
in 2015 and the legislature, consciously, framed Rule 18 in 2018 while consciously
retaining BMPLR+2%. This was done to ensure a deterrent benchmark to protect
allottees/buyers under a beneficial enactment.
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 22
c. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Newtech
1
Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP has categorically held that
the mandatory pre-deposit condition under the proviso to Section 43(5) is not
onerous, not violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) and constitutionally valid. In that
view of the matter, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to either
entertain the Writ Petitions or grant a direction to substitute BMPLR with MCLR.
d. It is submitted that the builder had a statutory remedy under Section
58(1) of Act 16 of 2016 to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The
builder has bypassed Section 58(1) and approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
e. The learned counsel urged that the impugned order has cascading
consequences as promoters/builders across the board who have been served with
adverse orders passed by the Authority would demand that their Appeals be admitted
by permitting pre-deposits at MCLR rates. This would undermine the mandatory
pre-deposit and cause serious prejudice to the allottees/buyers.
f. The learned counsel pointed out that a reading of the impugned order
would reveal that the learned Single Judge was persuaded by the fact that the State,
which was arrayed as a respondent had not filed its counter. It is urged that when
the constitutional validity of a statutory provision is challenged, the affidavits of the
1
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1044
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 23
parties or of the Government do not have much relevance. To substantiate the said
contention profuse reliance was placed on the law laid down by this Court in
2
Managing Director, KSRTC v. Union of India and Others .
g. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the law laid down
3
by the Apex Court in Charanjit Chowdhury v. Union of India and Others and
4
Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 (1), In re and it was argued that the Courts shall
not ordinarily suspend statutory provisions, and can do so only in rare cases of ex
facie unconstitutionality.
8. Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel has advanced the
following submissions.
a. Relying on the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in K.S. Das
5
v. State of Kerala , and in P.T. Thomas and Others v Bijo Thomas and
6
Others and it was urged that normally discretionary orders passed by the learned
Single Judge are not interfered with unless the impugned orders are without
jurisdiction, contrary to law or are perverse and they also cause serious prejudice to
the parties in such a manner that it might be difficult to restore the status quo ante
2
[ 2010 (1) KHC 49]
3
[AIR 1951 SC 41]
4
[ (2025) 10 SCC 1]
5
[ 1992 KHC 366]
6
[2021 (6) KHC 279]
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 24
or grant adequate compensation. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge only
wanted to resolve the stalemate and permit the matter to be adjudicated by the
Appellate Tribunal so that a decision either way could be taken.
b. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the proviso to Section 43(5)
is onerous, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It was urged that
mandating deposit of the entire delay period interest as a pre-condition for appeal
renders the right of appeal illusory, particularly since the builder is financially
distressed and the building is already completed.
c. It is submitted that BMPLR has been abolished by RBI since 2015 and is
therefore an unworkable benchmark. Since all banks have migrated to MCLR as
directed by RBI, prescribing BMPLR in Rule 18 makes the provision unworkable. The
learned counsel further urged that several States have adopted MCLR as the
benchmark in their respective RERA Rules and in that view of the matter,
incorporation of BMPLR in the Kerala Rules was unwarranted.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions.
10. Before dealing with the submissions, it would be appropriate to refer to
the statutory provisions.
11. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was enacted to
establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and promotion of the
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 25
real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may
be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner and to
protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector. The enactment was
brought in to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and
also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions
or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for
matters connected thereto.
12. In the case on hand, the allottees/buyers had approached the RERA
complaining that about Rs.38,24,396/- was received from them in the year 2013
assuring completion of the project in the year 2016. Admittedly the undertaking was
not complied with. The Authority passed the order on 29.12.2023 directing the
promoters/builders to pay simple interest at 16.85% per annum for the amounts paid
and calculated from the time on which it was paid. The said direction was issued in
view of Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018
which reads as under:
Rule 18 Rate of interest payable by the promoter and the allottee.--
(1) The annual rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee or
by the allottee to the promoter, as the case may be, shall be the State
Bank of India's Benchmark Prime Lending Rate plus two percent and
shall be computed as simple interest.
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 26
(2) In case of payment from the promoter due to the allottee, the interest
on amount due shall be computed at the rate as per sub-rule (1)
above from the agreed date of payment of such amount from the
allottee to the promoter as per the agreed payment schedule as part
of the agreement of construction or sale.
(3) In case of payment from the allottee to the promoter, the interest on
amount due shall be computed at the rate as per sub-rule (1) above
from the agreed date of payment of such amount from the allottee to
the promoter as per the agreed payment schedule as part of the
agreement of construction or sale.
Rule 18 (1) is specific and it says that the annual rate of interest payable by
the promoter/builder to the allottee/buyer or by the allottee/buyer to the
promoter/builder, as the case may be, shall be the State Bank of India's Benchmark
Prime Lending Rate plus two percent and shall be computed as simple interest. It
was on that basis the RERA had calculated the interest.
13. Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the RERA is entitled to
prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The relevant provision is Section 43
(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act which reads as follows.
Section 43 Establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.--
(5) Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by
the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an
appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the
matter:
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 27
Provided that where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate
Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having
deposited with the Appellate Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the
penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the
Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee
including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with
both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.
Thus a remedy by way of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is provided but the
same is hedged with conditions. It says that if the RERA imposes a penalty, at least
30 percent of the same has to be deposited as a pre condition for entertaining the
appeal. If the RERA has awarded interest and compensation, then for entertaining
the appeal, the total amount is to be paid as a precondition for entertaining the
appeal.
14. The statute further provides an appeal to the High Court. Section 58 of
the Act 16 of 2016 deals with the same. The said provision reads as follows:
Section 58 Appeal to High Court.--
(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate
Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the High Court, within a period of sixty
days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the
Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds
specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908):
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 28
Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the
expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the
appeal in time.
Explanation.-- The expression "High Court" means the High Court of a
State or Union Territory where the real estate project is situated.
(2) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order made by the
Appellate Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
15. In Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), real
estate developers, by name Newtech filed a batch of appeals challenging the validity of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The respondents therein
were allottees/buyers who invested their savings in the belief that the developers
would hand over possession of the unit in accordance with the home buyer's
agreement. However, the developers failed to do so, and the home buyers filed
complaints for refund of their investment under Section 31 of the Act. The RERA
ordered the developers to refund the principal amount along with interest. Various
contentions were raised before the Apex Court and the foremost among them were the
following:
a. Whether the Act 16 of 2016 is retrospective or retroactive in its
operation and what will be its legal consequence if tested on the anvil
of the Constitution of India?
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 29
b. Whether the condition of pre-deposit under proviso to Section 43(5)
of the Act for entertaining substantive right of appeal is sustaina ble in
law?
16. The Apex Court noted that the Act was introduced with the object of
ensuring greater accountability towards consumers, significantly reducing frauds,
delays, and the prevailing high transaction costs in the real estate sector, while
simultaneously balancing the interests of consumers and promoter/builder by imposing
corresponding responsibilities on both. The Act also seeks to bring transparency to
contractual conditions, prescribe minimum standards of accountability, and establish a
fast-track dispute resolution mechanism. Further, it aims to infuse professionalism and
standardisation into the sector, thereby paving the way for accelerated growth and
long-term investment. It was further observed that the unqualified right of an allottee
to seek refund under Sections 18(1)(a) and 19(4) of the Act 16 of 2016 is not
dependent upon any contingencies or stipulations. The Apex Court held that the
legislature has consciously conferred upon the allottee an unconditional and absolute
right to claim refund on demand where the promoter/builder fails to hand over
possession of the apartment, plot, or building within the time stipulated under the
agreement. Such right is enforceable irrespective of unforeseen events or stay orders
passed by any Court or Tribunal, so long as the delay is not attributable to the
allottee/buyer. The Court further held that, in such circumstances, the promoter/builder
is under a statutory obligation to refund the amount received, together with interest at
the rate prescribed by the State Government, along with compensation in the manner
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 30
contemplated under the Act. At the same time, if the allottee/buyer does not wish to
withdraw from the project, the allottee/buyer would be entitled to interest for the
entire period of delay until possession is handed over, at the prescribed rate. The Apex
Court also held that, having regard to the scheme of the Act 16 of 2016, its operation
is retroactive in character. However, projects which had already been completed or had
obtained completion certificates prior to the enactment do not fall within its ambit. At
the same time, the Act would apply to ongoing and future projects upon registration
under Section 3, and such projects are thereafter required to prospectively comply with
the mandate of the Act 16 of 2016.
17. Insofar as the requirement of pre-deposit is concerned, the Apex Court
noted that several statutes prescribe the deposit of a stipulated statutory amount as a
condition precedent for entertaining an appeal before an appellate forum or tribunal
for reappraisal of facts and law at the appellate stage. In that context, the Apex Court
7
considered the principles of law in Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. UCO Bank , which
dealt with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act;
8
Har Devi Asnani v. State of Rajasthan , which considered the validity of the
proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998; State of Haryana v.
9
Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Shreenath Corporation v. Consumer Education and
10
Research Society , dealing with pre-deposit under the Consumer Protection Act,
7
[(2011) 4 SCC 548]
8
[(2011) 14 SCC 160]
9
[(2000) 7 SCC 348]
10
[(2014) 8 SCC 657]
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 31
1988; and Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB Private
11
Limited) v. State of Punjab , which examined the validity of the pre-deposit
requirement under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (PVAT). After considering the
aforesaid decisions, the Apex Court in Newtech (supra) observed as follows :
"134. To be noticed, the intention of the instant legislation appears
to be that the promoters ought to show their bona fides by depositing the
amount so contemplated.
135. It is indeed the right of appeal which is a creature of the
statute, without a statutory provision, creating such a right the person
aggrieved is not entitled to file the appeal. It is neither an absolute right
nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principles of which must be
followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial litigations and it is always be
circumscribed with the conditions of grant. At the given time, it is open for
the legislature in its wisdom to enact a law that no appeal shall lie or it may
lie on fulfilment of precondition, if any, against the order passed by the
Authority in question.
136. In our considered view, the obligation cast upon the promoter
of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Act, being a class in itself, and
the promoters who are in receipt of money which is being claimed by the
home buyers/allottees for refund and determined in the first place by the
competent authority, if legislature in its wisdom intended to ensure that
money once determined by the authority be saved if appeal is to be
preferred at the instance of the promoter after due compliance of
pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 43(5) of the Act, in no
circumstance can be said to be onerous as prayed for or in violation of
Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India".
11
[AIR 2019 SC 4489]
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 32
18. The questions posed before the Apex Court in Tirupati Steels (M/s.) v.
12
M/s. Shubh Industrial Component and Another was whether the pre-deposit of
75% of the awarded amount as per Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006, while
challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, is made
mandatory. The Apex Court observed as under:
8. The question which is posed for consideration of this Court is,
whether, the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per Section
19 of the Msmed Act, 2006, while challenge to the award under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, is made mandatory or not, is now no
longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in Gujarat State
Disaster Management Authority v. Aska Equipments Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC
61 While interpreting Section 19 of the Msmed Act, 2006 and after
taking into consideration the earlier decision of this Court in Goodyear
India Ltd. v. Norton Intech Rubbers (P) Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 345, it is
observed and held that the requirement of deposit of 75% of the
amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit as per Section 19 of the
Msmed Act, is mandatory. It is also observed that however, at the same
time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the
appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be
undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the
awarded amount as a pre-deposit at a time, the court may allow the
pre-deposit to be made in instalments. Therefore, it is specifically
observed and held that pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount
under Section 19 of the Msmed Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement.
12
[AIR 2022 SC 1939]
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 33
19. Thus, the requirement of pre-deposit mandated under the statute is
binding on the appellant, and under no circumstances can the same be diluted. In view
of the law laid down in Newtech (supra), the effect of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is, in substance, an amendment of a statutory rule through
judicial intervention. Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2018 is a piece of delegated legislation framed under Section 84 of the Act 16 of
2016. The Rule specifically prescribes SBI’s BMPLR plus 2% as the applicable
benchmark for determining interest. The said prescription, consciously fixed by the
rule-making authority, cannot be characterised as obsolete merely because the Reserve
Bank of India subsequently issued directions to banks regarding the adoption of
alternative lending benchmarks. Furthermore, the Rules were framed in 2018, nearly
three years after the introduction of MCLR by the RBI. It can only be taken that the
rule-making authority was fully aware of the MCLR regime and despite the same they
consciously chose to retain BMPLR plus 2% as the statutory benchmark. We have no
hesitation in observing that the same constitutes a policy decision of the State
intended to protect the interests of homebuyers under a beneficial legislation. The
validity of the provision having already been upheld by the Apex Court, this Court could
not have substituted that legislative policy choice with an alternative benchmark
through an interim order.
20. We would like to observe, at this juncture, that accepting the argument
and contention of the promoter/builder would lead to wholly untenable consequences.
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 34
To understand the consequences, it would be profitable to understand the subtle
distinction between Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BMPLR), Marginal Cost of Funds
Based Lending Rate (MCLR) and the newly introduced External Benchmark Lending
Rate (EBLR) based on the Repo rate of the Reserve Bank.
21. The Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BMPLR), was originally used by
banks as their internal reference rate for lending. Each bank fixed its own BPLR based
on its cost of funds, operating expenses and profit margin. The system was opaque
and did not always move with monetary policy. This was because when RBI cut rates,
banks could simply ignore the signal and keep BPLR unchanged. It was also noticed
that large corporate borrowers routinely got loans below BPLR while retail borrowers
paid above it, making the "benchmark" largely fictional. To fix the above issue, RBI
introduced the Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) from April 2016.
Unlike BPLR, MCLR was built on the marginal cost of raising fresh funds, the cost of
maintaining mandatory reserves, operating costs, and a tenor premium. Banks were
required to publish MCLR across multiple tenors monthly, and most home loans were
linked to the one-year MCLR. SBI's one-year MCLR currently stands at approximately
8.75 – 9%, roughly half its BPLR. Finding that MCLR was still not serving the purpose,
RBI mandated from October 2019 that all new floating rate retail loans and MSME
loans must be linked to an External Benchmark Lending Rate (EBLR) , which in
practice, is the RBI Repo Rate. This has been adopted by all the banks now. Since the
Repo Rate component resets immediately on every RBI policy change, monetary
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 35
transmission is now near-instantaneous. With the Repo Rate currently at 6.00%, SBI's
repo-linked home loan rates sit in the range of 8.50–9.25% depending on the
borrower's credit profile. It would be pertinent to note that BMPLR , though phased out
as ordered by the RBI, is still used for certain contingencies and SBI's BPLR as of
September 2023 stood at 14.85%.
22. The practical consequence of these three regimes in the RERA context is
illuminating. If the facts of this case are taken as a basis, on a principal of Rs.36 lakhs
over a seven-year delay period, simple interest at BMPLR+2% (16.85%) yields a
liability of approximately Rs.42–45 lakhs. If the MCLR (9%) is adopted, it drops to
Rs.22–23 lakhs; and at the repo-linked rate it is marginally lower still. The gap
between BMPLR+2% and MCLR alone is nearly Rs.20 lakhs on a single flat. This is
exactly the reason why the promoter/builder sought to adopt MCLR instead of BMPLR.
The legislature framed Rule 18 in 2018, three years after MCLR was already the
prevailing banking standard, and chose BMPLR+2% anyway. We are of the view that
the intent of the Legislature was deliberate and the same was to fix a deterrent rate
that would compensate allottees/buyers meaningfully and discourage promoter/builder
defaults. If the order is allowed to stand, every promoter/builder against whom an
order is issued by the RERA would at the stage of filing of the appeal insist on
refixation of the pre-deposit with External Benchmark Lending Rate (EBLR), which
would lower their burden even further. This would render Rule 18 a dead letter and
deprive the provision of certainty and enforceability. More importantly, such an
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 36
interpretation would seriously undermine the interests of allottees/buyers and dilute
the very safeguards which the Act was enacted to secure.
23. One needs to bear in mind that RERA is a beneficial legislation enacted
specifically to protect allottees/buyers. As in the instant case, the legislature took note
of a situation where allottees/buyers would have availed loans to purchase the
apartment expecting that the same would be delivered on time. After giving such an
undertaking, stating one reason or another and citing force majeure events, the
promoter/builder would delay the handover. It was taking note of the above
eventuality that the higher interest rate (BMPLR+2%) was insisted on. This was
intended to be deliberately deterrent and designed to discourage promoter/builder
from retaining money and delaying possession. In the instant case, the
promoter/builder received the buyer's money, failed to deliver possession by 2016 and
the buyer almost certainly serviced a home loan throughout. Diluting the interest rate
to MCLR is a direct financial benefit to the defaulting promoter/builder at the expense
of the allottee which is against the intent of the enactment.
24. There is yet another important aspect to the matter. The principal reliefs
sought in the Writ Petition are as follows:
(i) To set aside Ext.P9 order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the
Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 37
(ii) To declare that the State Bank of India's Bench Mark Prime
Lending Rate fixed in Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules 2018 is ultra vires to the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and
thereafter to incorporate Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR)
in Rule 18 instead of State Bank of India's Bench Mark Prime
Lending Rate.
The relief sought, is in effect, the substitution of MCLR in place of BMPLR under
Rule 18. Such a prayer essentially would require this Court to enter the legislative
domain, which is impermissible under the doctrine of separation of powers. At best,
the Court may declare a provision unconstitutional and leave it to the legislature to
cure the defect, or read down the provision to save it from invalidity. However, this
Court cannot rewrite a statutory rule or insert new language into it under the guise of
judicial interpretation. Further, when the constitutionality of a statutory provision is
under challenge, the affidavits filed by the parties or even by the Government do not
assume decisive significance. As held by this Court in Managing Director, KSRTC
(supra), the validity of a statutory provision must be tested on settled constitutional
principles and not on the basis of pleadings alone. Therefore, merely because a
counter affidavit had not been filed by the State, no interim order could have been
granted suspending or diluting the operation of Rule 18.
25. We are not impressed with the contention advanced by the learned
senior counsel that the Writ Appeals are not maintainable as it has been filed against
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 38
an interim order. The question whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against an interlocutory order in a writ
petition, while the main writ petition is pending and if so, what are the circumstances
under which or the types of cases in which such an appeal would lie, has been
examined by a Larger Bench of this Court in K.S. Das (supra). The majority opinion in
the said case is as follows:
" 46. xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Conclusion
(1) The word ‘order’ in S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958
includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the High
Court in Miscellaneous Petitions filed in the Writ Petitions provided
the orders are to be in force pending the Writ Petition. An appeal
would lie against such orders only if the orders substantially affect
or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or
are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the
parties. The nature of the ‘order’ appealable belongs to the
category of ‘intermediate orders’ referred to by the Supreme Court
in Madhu Limaye's case, (1977) 4 SCC 551. The word ‘order’ is
not confined to ‘final order’ which disposes of the Writ Petition.
The ‘orders’ should not. however, be ad interim orders in force
pending the Miscellaneous Petition or orders merely of a
procedural nature.
(2) But this does not mean that the Division Bench hearing the
appeal against such ‘orders’ will have to admit the appeal or have
to modify the impugned order or set it aside the same in every
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 39
case. There is difference between the question whether an appeal
lies to a Division Bench and as to the scope of interference.
Normally, discretionary orders are not interfered with unless the
impugned orders are without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or are
perverse, and they also cause serious prejudice to the parties in
such a manner that it might be difficult to restore the status quo
ante or grant adequate compensation. The idea is to provide an
internal remedy in such cases without compelling the parties to go
all the way to the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India or increase the burden of that court
unnecessarily,
(3) It will, however, be incumbent upon the appellant to serve the
counsel who has appeared before the Single Judge for the
opposite party (unless of course the counsel's authority has been
revoked or he is dead) and when such appeals against orders
come up in appeal for admission before the Division Bench, it will
be open to the Bench to treat such service as mentioned above as
sufficient service on the parties (unless the court, in the
circumstances of the case, thinks otherwise) and to dispose of the
appeal either at the stage of admission or soon thereafter, after
considering the facts of the case or subsequent events. This
would generally obviate admission of the Writ Appeals, issue of
notice and the passing of interim orders pending Writ Appeals.”
26. In other words, even though an appeal could be filed against an
interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, the order which is impugned has to be of
such a nature as one without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or are perverse, and they
also cause serious prejudice to the parties in such a manner that it might be difficult to
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 40
restore the status quo ante or grant adequate compensation. The nature of the order
appealable would belong to the category of intermediate orders referred to by the
13
Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State Of Maharashtra . It was, however, clarified
by the Larger Bench in the said case that such orders should not, however, be ad
interim orders or orders merely of a procedural nature.
27. Insofar as the orders impugned in these appeals are concerned, the
same effectively substitutes MCLR for BMPLR+2%. This is not as a tentative
arrangement pending hearing, but as a direction for actual computation and deposit.
Once the builder deposits at MCLR rate and the Appellate Tribunal entertains the
appeal on that basis, the pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) is
treated as satisfied. This is a conclusion that operates with finality. There is no
requirement for the appellate authority to wait till the writ petition is heard and
disposed of. If that occurs, the builder would be able to get over the pre-deposit
requirement under the statute despite the larger question remaining unanswered by
the Court. The pre-deposit is a jurisdictional condition precedent to the Appellate
Tribunal entertaining the appeal filed by the promoter/builder. By reducing its quantum
through an interim order, the Single Judge has effectively conferred jurisdiction on the
Appellate Tribunal that the statute, read with Rule 18, does not permit.
28. In view of the discussion above, the appellants are entitled to succeed.
13
(1977) 4 SCC 551
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 41
a) The interim order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C) Nos. 35451, 36421, 36488, 36492, 36503 and 36658 of 2024
are vacated.\
b) The appellants in REFA Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 2024 pending
before the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, are granted
two weeks time from today to deposit the entire amount towards interest
and compensation strictly in accordance with Rule 18 of the Kerala Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 r/w. Section 18 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, as directed by the
Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 24.05.2024 in I.A.No. 83 of 2024 in
REFA No. 43 of 2024.
c) It is made clear that the credit for any amount already deposited by the
promoter/builder pursuant to the impugned interim order shall be taken
into account while computing the balance to be deposited, and the
shortfall, if any, between the amount so deposited and the amount due
under Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2018 shall be made good within the said period of two weeks.
d) If the amounts are not deposited as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal in
its order dated 24.05.2024, the Appellate Tribunal shall be entitled to
pass such orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and
2026:KER:37190
WA Nos. 1058, 1059, 1060,
1063, 1064 & 1076 of 2026 42
circumstances of the case, including rejection or dismissal of the appeal
for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit condition under the
proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.
e) There will be no order as to costs.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
& APM /28/05/26
PS JUDGE