A Rs 85.57 Lakh RERA Refund, a 2016 Certificate and a 2021 Letter: Karnataka High Court Order
The Karnataka High Court on October 5, 2026 refused to hear a developer's writ challenge to a K-RERA order directing a Rs 85,56,987 refund with interest to a buyer of Flat A-202 in Time and Space Infinity, Kannamangala, and sent it to the RERA Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. Here is what the order says about pre-RERA completion claims and seven steps for buyers.
On August 31, 2015, a buyer signed an agreement for Flat A-202 on the second floor of Block A in Time and Space Infinity, a residential project at Kannamangala village in Devanahalli taluk. The total sale consideration was Rs 49,33,536. Possession was due on or before August 1, 2016. The buyer says he paid Rs 46,93,506. Ten years later, the dispute over that flat was still running, and he held an order from the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority directing a refund of Rs 85,56,987 with interest.
The developer took that order to the Karnataka High Court, arguing the regulator had no jurisdiction at all because the project was finished before the RERA Act applied. On October 5, 2026, the court declined to decide that question in a writ petition and sent the developer to the RERA Appellate Tribunal. The developer's own 2021 letter, saying internal works were still pending, featured prominently in the reasoning.
The short answer. In Writ Petition No. 18065 of 2024, Justice K.S. Hemalekha disposed of the developer's challenge to K-RERA's April 2, 2024 refund order, holding that disputed questions about the 2016 completion certificate and the actual completion date must be urged before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 43 of the RERA Act. The court gave the developer 30 days to appeal, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and transmitted any amount deposited in the High Court to the tribunal. The trade-off: the buyer's refund order survives the writ challenge, but the appeal route gives the developer another forum, so the money is not yet in the buyer's hands.
What did K-RERA order?
K-RERA allowed the buyer's complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act and directed the developer, Time and Space Engineering Constructions Pvt. Ltd., to refund Rs 85,56,987 with interest within 60 days. As recorded by the High Court, interest was awarded at 9 percent from August 1, 2015 to April 30, 2017, then at SBI MCLR plus 2 percent from May 1, 2017 to December 17, 2023, with further interest from December 18, 2023 until realisation.
The regulator also directed its secretary to initiate proceedings under Section 59(1) of the RERA Act for violation of Section 3, on account of non-registration of the project. Section 3 is the provision that requires registration of real estate projects.
The buyer's grievance before the regulator, as the High Court summarised it, was simple: despite paying substantial consideration, the developer neither completed the flat nor handed over possession within the stipulated period. He therefore sought a refund of the amount paid, together with interest, rather than continuing to wait for the flat.
What was the developer's defence?
The developer argued that the project was completed in 2016 and that a completion or occupancy certificate was issued by the competent authority on December 15, 2016, before the relevant provisions of the RERA Act came into force. It relied on the certificate and on photographs said to show completion of the project and Flat A-202. On that basis, it said, the RERA Act did not apply and K-RERA lacked jurisdiction. It cited a coordinate bench ruling in Provident Housing Limited v. K-RERA, decided on January 2, 2023, for the proposition that projects completed, or granted completion certificates, before the act came into force fall outside it.
It also said the buyer had failed to pay a balance of Rs 2,40,030, apart from registration charges and other amounts.
Why did the High Court not decide the jurisdiction question?
The buyer raised a preliminary objection: Section 43 of the RERA Act provides an appeal, and although the developer had come to the High Court saying the Appellate Tribunal was not functional, the tribunal has since been constituted and is functioning. The court agreed that this was not disputed.
On the merits, the court noted that K-RERA "specifically examined" the completion certificate "and expressed doubts regarding the certificate." It pointed to the developer's own reply notice dated January 4, 2021, which recorded that certain internal works were still pending and that work would be completed by the end of June 2021, subject to payment of dues and additional costs by flat owners. K-RERA had relied on that letter to reject the claim that the project was complete in 2016.
The court said questions about the 2016 certificate, the actual completion date, the effect of the 2021 reply and all other contentions "are matters to be appropriately urged before the Appellate Tribunal." It found no justification "for bypassing the statutory appellate remedy and adjudicating disputed questions of fact" in writ jurisdiction.
How do the key numbers and dates compare?
| Item | Amount or date | Source in the order |
|---|---|---|
| Agreement for Flat A-202 | August 31, 2015, for Rs 49,33,536 | Facts recorded by the court |
| Promised possession | On or before August 1, 2016 | Facts recorded by the court |
| Amount the buyer says he paid | Rs 46,93,506 | Buyer's claim, as recorded |
| Completion certificate relied on by developer | December 15, 2016 | Developer's defence; K-RERA expressed doubts |
| K-RERA refund order | April 2, 2024, Rs 85,56,987 with interest within 60 days | Impugned order, as recorded |
What does Section 43 of the RERA Act require of a promoter who appeals?
Section 43(5) of the RERA Act lets "any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order" of the authority or an adjudicating officer appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. A proviso adds a condition for promoters: an appeal by a promoter "shall not be entertained" without the promoter first depositing with the tribunal at least thirty percent of the penalty, or a higher percentage the tribunal determines, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation, or both, as the case may be, before the appeal is heard.
That is why the location of any deposit matters. Here, the High Court directed that any amount the developer had deposited with it under the interim order be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 43 also provides that a "person" who may appeal includes an association of allottees or a registered voluntary consumer association, which matters where many buyers in one project are affected.
Does a completion certificate before 2017 take a project out of RERA?
This order does not answer that, and buyers should not read it as doing so. The developer relied on an earlier High Court ruling that completed projects fall outside the act. The court did not reject that principle. It held that whether this project was in fact complete, and whether the certificate reflects reality, are disputed facts for the Appellate Tribunal.
The same question arose in a different form in the Raffles Park villa case decided by the same court a day later, which PropNewz covered in our report on the Raffles Park occupancy certificate ruling. There too, the court left the "ongoing project" question to the RERA authorities. For buyers, the common thread is that a certificate is evidence, not the last word, and contemporaneous documents such as a developer's own letters can matter a great deal.
What happens next, and what should buyers take from this?
The developer can appeal within 30 days of October 5, 2026. If it does, the tribunal must consider the appeal on merits without rejecting it for delay caused by the writ petition, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is to be made available in accordance with law. Any amount the developer deposited in the High Court under its interim order goes to the tribunal. PropNewz has explained the pre-deposit a promoter must make to appeal in our guide to Section 43(5) and promoter appeals, and how refund interest is calculated in our explainer on RERA refund interest.
If you are a buyer in a similar position, the order suggests some practical steps.
- Keep every payment receipt and bank record, because the regulator will base any refund on proof of payment.
- Keep every letter or email from the developer about pending works or completion dates.
- Ask for the completion or occupancy certificate and check whether it matches the actual state of your unit.
- Check whether the project was ever registered with K-RERA and note the registration details or their absence.
- If you win an order, diary the developer's appeal deadline and watch for any appeal filed.
- If an appeal is filed, ask how much pre-deposit has been made and where it is held.
- Take legal advice on enforcing the order once the appeal period passes or the appeal is decided.
The buyer's journey here began with a 2015 agreement and a 2016 possession date. A refund order arrived in 2024. A writ challenge took until October 2026 to clear. Whatever the tribunal decides, the record in this case shows how much depends on documents written years before anyone imagined a dispute.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Karnataka High Court decide in the Time and Space Infinity case?
On October 5, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 18065 of 2024, it disposed of the developer's challenge to K-RERA's refund order, holding that disputed facts about the 2016 completion certificate and completion date must be raised in an appeal under Section 43 of the RERA Act before the Appellate Tribunal.
How much did K-RERA order the developer to refund?
K-RERA's order of April 2, 2024 directed a refund of Rs 85,56,987 with interest within 60 days, with interest at 9 percent from August 1, 2015 to April 30, 2017 and SBI MCLR plus 2 percent from May 1, 2017 to December 17, 2023, and further interest until realisation.
Why did the developer say RERA did not apply?
It argued the project was completed in 2016 with a completion or occupancy certificate dated December 15, 2016, before the RERA Act applied. K-RERA expressed doubts about the certificate, relying on the developer's own January 4, 2021 reply notice saying internal works were still pending.
How long does the developer have to appeal?
The court reserved liberty to appeal under Section 43 of the RERA Act and said that if the appeal is filed within 30 days, the tribunal should not reject it for delay caused by the writ petition, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should be extended in accordance with law.
Last updated 2026-11-01. PropNewz Team.
Contact Us
Stay updated with latest news and new projects!
Tell us what you want, We'll do the rest.
Share your budget and where you're looking. An advisor who has actually walked the sites will shortlist a handful of RERA-registered projects and tell you which to skip.