Builder Rescued Through Insolvency? The Registered Promoter, Not the New Parent, Answers to Buyers

In June and August 2025, buyers at Ten BKC, a residential project in Bandra registered with MahaRERA as P51800004889, received possession and payment demand letters with "Adani Realty" printed at the top. When some of them filed complaints, they named Adani Goodhomes Private Limited as a respondent alongside the two companies on the MahaRERA record. MahaRERA agreed that Adani should stay in the case. On appeal, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal disagreed.

In a judgment reserved on 21 October 2026 and pronounced on 29 October, the tribunal held that Adani, the successful resolution applicant that took over the shareholding of the insolvent promoter, is not the promoter of the project. It directed MahaRERA to delete Adani from three buyer complaints and hear them on merits against the registered promoters. For Mumbai buyers whose builder has been rescued through insolvency, the ruling is a clear guide to whom a complaint should be filed against.

The short answer. The Maharashtra REAT set aside three MahaRERA interim orders dated 13 August 2026 and held that Radius Estate and Developers Private Limited and its co-promoter MIG (Bandra) Realtors and Builders Private Limited "continue to be promoters" of Ten BKC and "alone are liable towards allottees". Adani, as shareholder and holding company of Radius under an NCLT-approved resolution plan, was held to be neither a necessary nor a proper party. The trade-off for buyers: the complaints continue against the registered promoters, but buyers cannot rely on the brand name on their letters to bring the larger group into the case.

What was the dispute in the Ten BKC appeals?

According to the Maharashtra REAT judgment in Appeal No. AT06/01531/2026 and connected appeals, Radius is the promoter of Ten BKC and MIG is the co-promoter on MahaRERA's records. Radius went through a corporate insolvency resolution process, and Adani was the successful resolution applicant. Buyers filed Complaints CC12503664, CC12503665 and CC12503666 of 2025 and named Adani as a respondent.

Adani applied to have its name deleted, arguing that it was neither an allottee nor a registered promoter, but a shareholder and resolution applicant with no contract with the buyers. MahaRERA rejected that request in interim orders dated 13 August 2026, finding that Adani had assumed management and control of the project, issued possession demand letters dated 14 June 2025 and 24 August 2025, collected disputed money under protest and handed over possession. Adani appealed, and Radius and MIG supported the appeal.

What did the buyers argue before the tribunal?

The allottees opposed the appeals. Their counsel said the MahaRERA orders were interim orders on whether Adani should be a party, and did not finally decide its liability. Adani's arguments about lack of contract, its status as promoter or successor promoter and its liability under the Act, they said, could all be raised and decided in the complaints themselves.

They also argued that the mere need to take part in proceedings is not a ground for a stay, that the presence of all parties was considered necessary by the Authority for complete adjudication, and that removing Adani would delay the complaints and prejudice the buyers' remedies. Adani, in turn, said a successful resolution applicant does not take on the pre-existing contractual liabilities of the corporate debtor, which are governed by the resolution plan approved by the NCLT. Radius and MIG adopted Adani's arguments and told the tribunal that they continue as separate companies and as promoters of the project.

Why did the tribunal say Adani is not the promoter?

The tribunal gave four reasons. First, the resolution plan itself provided that Radius would be amalgamated with an Adani wholly owned subsidiary, and that this "Resolved Entity shall be the promoter of the Project under RERA", entitled to market it as an Adani project. The tribunal read this as making clear that the resolution applicant "is not the promoter of the project".

Second, the letters relied on by MahaRERA were signed by Radius and MIG, not by Adani, and "the mere mention of Adani Realty on the top of the said letters does not make appellant promoter of the project". Third, payments went into an escrow account of Radius with HDFC Bank, so "amounts have been received by Radius and not by the appellant". Fourth, on company law, the tribunal said a company is a separate legal person, that "the holding company and its subsidiary are always distinct legal entities", and that Ten BKC is an asset of Radius, not of its shareholder. It added that Adani had executed no allotment letter, agreement for sale or undertaking in favour of the buyers.

Did Section 15 make the new owner a promoter?

MahaRERA had also relied on Section 15, which governs transfer of a project to a third party. The tribunal said Section 15 requires the promoter's majority rights and liabilities to be transferred with prior written consent of allottees and prior written approval of the Authority, after which the old promoter's obligations pass to the new promoter. In this case, it found, "no such transfer or approval exists". Acquiring the shareholding of the promoter company through a resolution plan "does not automatically" amount to a transfer of the project under Section 15.

This is the key contrast with our report on the Match Point takeover ruling, where the project itself was transferred to a new company that accepted the old promoter's pending obligations, and that new company was held liable for delay interest.

How do the two kinds of takeover compare?

What should a Mumbai buyer check when a builder is rescued through insolvency?

An insolvency rescue can bring in a well-known group, and buyers understandably look to that group for answers. This ruling shows that the legal question is narrower: which entity is the registered promoter, who signs your documents, and whose account receives your money. Our guide to verifying a MahaRERA project registration explains how to read the project page. Use this checklist.

1. Open the project's MahaRERA page and note every promoter and co-promoter listed, with their exact company names.
2. Read the approved resolution plan terms, if shared with allottees, to see which entity is named as the promoter going forward.
3. Check who signs each possession letter, demand letter and receipt, not just whose logo appears at the top.
4. Note the name on the bank account you are asked to pay into, and keep every payment confirmation.
5. Ask in writing whether there has been any transfer of the project under Section 15 and whether MahaRERA approved it.
6. When filing a complaint, name the registered promoter and co-promoter; take advice before adding any other group company.
7. Watch for any later amalgamation; under this plan the merged entity, not the resolution applicant, is to be the promoter.

Does this ruling leave Ten BKC buyers without a remedy?

No. The tribunal held that Radius and MIG "are liable towards allottees for all the liabilities arising out of the provisions of RERA Act, 2016", and directed MahaRERA to hear the three complaints on merits. MIG itself told the tribunal that both registered promoters are liable to the allottees. The ruling decides only who is a proper party; it does not decide the buyers' claims. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. Adani's three stay applications, M.A. Nos. 1713, 1714 and 1715 of 2026, were disposed of because nothing survived once the appeals were allowed, and a copy of the order goes to MahaRERA under Section 44(4).

The buyers' counsel had argued that the MahaRERA orders were only interim orders on impleadment and that Adani could raise its defences in the complaint. The tribunal did not accept that the complaints needed Adani's presence, holding that they "can be effectively adjudicated without the presence of the appellant". For legal advice on your own complaint, consult a lawyer who handles RERA and insolvency matters.

Frequently asked questions

Is Adani the promoter of Ten BKC under RERA?

Not according to the Maharashtra REAT's October 2026 judgment. The tribunal held that Adani, as successful resolution applicant and holding company of Radius, is not the promoter, and that Radius and MIG continue to be the promoters liable to allottees. It directed MahaRERA to delete Adani from three buyer complaints.

Does a brand name on my possession letter make that company liable?

In the Ten BKC case, no. The tribunal said the mere mention of Adani Realty at the top of the letters did not make Adani the promoter, because the letters were signed by Radius and MIG and payments went to a Radius escrow account. Check who signs your letters and whose account receives your money.

Does buying an insolvent builder's shares count as a Section 15 transfer?

The tribunal held that it does not automatically do so. Section 15 requires transfer of the promoter's majority rights and liabilities with prior written consent of allottees and approval of the Authority. Because no such transfer or approval existed, acquiring Radius's shares did not make Adani a promoter under Section 15.

Who should Ten BKC buyers name in a RERA complaint?

The tribunal held that Radius Estate and Developers and MIG (Bandra) Realtors and Builders are the promoters on MahaRERA's records and alone are liable towards allottees under RERA. It directed MahaRERA to hear the complaints on merits against them. Buyers should take legal advice on their own complaint.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.