A Win Undone on Procedure: Bombay HC Sends Avant Heritage Flat Case Back to NCDRC

Two buyers booked flat A-801 in Avant Heritage-I, in Jogeshwari East, Mumbai, on January 31, 2015, and signed the agreement for sale on January 19, 2016. In 2022 the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission ordered the builder to hand over vacant possession with the occupation certificate. In April 2024 the National Commission cut that relief back, recording March 4, 2021 as the handover date. Three months later, on review, the National Commission restored possession. Then, on September 23, 2026, the Bombay High Court set that review order aside, because the builder had not been heard.

The judgment, in Aishwarya Avant Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Kusumdevi Vidyaprakash Vishwakarma, Writ Petition No. 8762 of 2025, was delivered by Justice N. J. Jamadar. It decides nothing about who is right on the flat. What it shows Bengaluru buyers who go to a consumer commission is how a favourable order can be lost on procedure, and how long that can add to a dispute.

The short answer. The High Court held that the National Commission had exercised "the power of substantive review and not procedural review," and that "an adverse order cannot be passed in review against a party without providing an effective opportunity" of being heard. It quashed the review order of July 16, 2024 and a related order of February 27, 2025, restored the review application to the National Commission, asked it to decide afresh after hearing both sides as expeditiously as possible, and directed the parties to appear before it on October 21, 2026. The trade-off: the buyers lose, for now, an order directing possession within three months, but the review application stays alive, with all contentions on merits left open.

How did the case bounce between forums?

According to the judgment, the buyers' complaint, CC/19/703, was partly allowed by the State Commission on June 29, 2022, reportedly ex parte. It found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed vacant possession with car parking and the occupation certificate, compensation for delay from January 1, 2018 until delivery, Rs 5,00,000 for mental agony and Rs 50,000 in litigation costs.

On the builders' appeal, the National Commission on April 8, 2024 awarded interest at 6 percent a year from January 1, 2019 to March 4, 2021, payable within eight weeks or at 9 percent thereafter, kept Rs 50,000 in costs, set aside the Rs 5,00,000 award and the possession order, and recorded March 4, 2021 as the handover date. A review application followed.

What did the review order of July 2024 do?

It partly allowed the review and directed vacant possession with car parking and occupation within three months, with interest at 6 percent a year from January 1, 2019 until handover, payable within eight weeks or at 9 percent thereafter. The other directions of April 8, 2024 were left undisturbed. The builders' application to modify that order was dismissed on February 27, 2025.

The builders argued that the review order was passed without hearing them, that it was a substantive review replacing the April 2024 order, and that they had complied with the April 2024 directions. The buyers argued that the builders' conduct bordered on dishonesty, that possession was never delivered, and that the builders had given different delivery dates at different times.

Why did the High Court set aside the buyers' win?

Because of how it was obtained, not what it said. The National Commission's power to review its own orders, under Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for an error apparent on the record, was not disputed. The question was whether it was properly exercised. The court found that the National Commission had effectively reconsidered the merits, a substantive review, and held that such an adverse order cannot be passed without giving the affected party an effective hearing. It relied on the proviso to Order XLVII Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires previous notice to the opposite party before a review is granted.

The court expressly did not decide the merits, and limited its observations to procedural propriety. There was no order as to costs.

Why did the label "substantive review" matter so much?

Because it decided what process was owed. The court treated the July 2024 order as a substantive review: it did not merely correct a slip, it changed the outcome on possession and on how long interest would run. The builders had argued exactly that, saying the review effectively replaced the April 2024 order. Once the court characterised it that way, the requirement of an effective hearing for the party affected followed, and the order could not stand without one.

The builders also told the High Court that they had complied with the April 2024 directions. The judgment does not examine that claim, since it confined itself to the procedure followed on review. For the buyers, that means any payment made under the April 2024 order, and its effect on what is still due, will also be part of the fresh hearing.

What happens next?

The review application is restored to the National Commission's file, and the parties were directed to appear before it on October 21, 2026; what happened at that hearing is not recorded in this judgment. The High Court asked the Commission to decide afresh, after hearing the parties, as expeditiously as possible, but set no deadline. All contentions on merits are open, which means the Commission can again consider possession, the handover date, the occupation certificate and interest.

The calendar is already long. The booking was in January 2015 and the agreement in January 2016. More than eleven years after booking, the buyers still do not have a final answer on whether possession was given, and when. Buyers starting a consumer case should plan for the possibility of a similar timeline.

What does this mean for a buyer who wins at a consumer commission?

That a win is only as durable as the process behind it. Here, the buyers' complaint was reportedly decided ex parte at the State Commission, then cut back on appeal, then restored on review without the builders being heard. Each step gave the losing side a ground to challenge. Over four years after the State Commission's 2022 order, the possession question is back before the National Commission.

PropNewz explained which consumer forum hears which claims in our guide to consumer commission jurisdiction, and reported a recent National Commission order on a possession offer without an occupancy certificate in our report on the Mahagun Meadows case.

The April 2024 order recorded March 4, 2021 as the handover date and capped interest there. The buyers' position before the High Court was that possession was never delivered. The July 2024 review order ran interest until actual handover and directed possession within three months. Which of these stands will now be decided by the National Commission on rehearing, and the High Court gave no view on it.

The handover date is the hinge of the dispute. The April 2024 order capped interest at March 4, 2021, while the review order ran it until actual handover. On a 6 percent rate, every additional year of interest is 6 percent of the base amount, so the choice between those two end dates has a direct money value for both sides, even though the judgment does not state the base amount.

For a buyer, the lesson is to document possession precisely: a date on a letter is not the same as keys, occupation and an occupation certificate, and the difference can decide years of interest.

What should a Bengaluru buyer in a consumer case do?

Protect the record at every stage, so that a favourable order is hard to undo. The checklist below follows the points that mattered here.

1. Make sure the builder is properly served, so an order is not later attacked as ex parte.
2. When seeking review, ask that notice go to the other side before any order.
3. Keep written proof of whether and when possession was actually handed over.
4. Record the occupation certificate status at the time of any handover.
5. Track every order, appeal, review and modification application with dates.
6. Appear on every date fixed after a remand; here the date set was October 21, 2026.
7. Take advice on whether to defend a favourable order on procedure as well as merits.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Bombay High Court decide in Aishwarya Avant Builders v. Vishwakarma?

On September 23, 2026, Justice N. J. Jamadar quashed the National Commission's review order of July 16, 2024 and a related order of February 27, 2025, restored the review application, and asked the Commission to decide it afresh after hearing both sides, with the parties directed to appear on October 21, 2026.

Why was the review order set aside?

The court found the National Commission had exercised substantive review, effectively reconsidering the merits, and held that an adverse order cannot be passed in review without giving the affected party an effective hearing. It relied on the CPC proviso requiring prior notice to the opposite party before a review is granted.

Did the High Court decide whether the buyers got possession?

No. It expressly did not decide the merits and limited its observations to procedural propriety. Whether March 4, 2021 is the handover date, as the April 2024 order recorded, or possession is still due, as the buyers say, is for the National Commission to decide on rehearing.

What should a buyer do to protect a consumer commission win?

Make sure the builder is properly served, ask that notice go to the other side before any review order, keep written proof of whether and when possession was handed over, note the occupation certificate status, track every order and appear on all dates fixed after a remand.

Last updated 2026-11-06. PropNewz Team.