M/S Signatureglobal (India) Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 1.
RERA-APPL-92-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: December 24th, 2025 M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Praveen Kumar Gupta .....Respondent 2.
RERA-APPL-100-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Narain and another .....Respondents 3.
RERA-APPL-101-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Balbir Singh Narval .....Respondent 4.
RERA-APPL-103-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Rampal Singh Chauhan .....Respondent
5.
RERA-APPL-108-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Renu Arora .....Respondent 6.
RERA-APPL-110-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Komal .....Respondent 7.
RERA-APPL-112-2025 (O&M) M/s Sternal Buildcon Private Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Niharika Mukherjee .....Respondent 8.
RERA-APPL-113-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Susheela Sangwan and another .....Respondents 9.
RERA-APPL-121-2025 (O&M) M/s Forever Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
.....Appellant
Versus
Narender Kumar .....Respondent
10.
RERA-APPL-122-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Shahana and another .....Respondents 11.
RERA-APPL-123-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Nikhil Walia and another .....Respondents 12.
RERA-APPL-125-2025 (O&M) M/s Forever Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
.....Appellant
Versus
Akhil Jain and another .....Respondents 13.
RERA-APPL-129-2025 (O&M) M/s Sternal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
.....Appellant
Versus
Kavita Mittal and another .....Respondents 14.
RERA-APPL-135-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Devroop Guha .....Respondent
15.
RERA-APPL-198-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Vashisht Arora .....Respondent 16.
RERA-APPL-200-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Gursharan Kaur Chadha .....Respondent 17.
RERA-APPL-220-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global (India) Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Meena Godhvani and another .....Respondents 18.
RERA-APPL-221-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global Homes Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Remzee William and others .....Respondents 19.
RERA-APPL-222-2025 (O&M) M/s Signature Global Homes Limited .....Appellant
Versus
Neelima Sharma .....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Sangam, Ms. Rubina Virmani, Ms. Prachi Gupta and Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate (through V.C.) for the respondent in RERA-APPL-108-2025.
Mr. Anjan Preet Singh and Mr. Shubhnit Hans, Advocates for respondent in RERA-APPL-112-2025.
Mr. Rahul Bhargava and Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocates for the respondents in RERA-APPL-121-2025 and RERA-APPL-125-2025.
Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents in RERA-APPL-122-2025.
Mr. Raj Kumar Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RERA-APPL-221-2025. Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate (through V.C.) for the respondent in RERA-APPL-222-2025.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.
This order will dispose of the above-mentioned 19 appeals as common issues of law/facts arise in all the appeals. A common order dated 05.06.2025 was passed by the Appellate Tribunal in RERA Appeal Nos.92, 100, 101, 103, 108, 110, 112, 113, 121, 122, 123 and 129 of 2025. The said common order has been challenged in the present appeals along with the order passed by the Regulatory Authority.
2.
RERA Appeal No.125 of 2025 has been filed challenging order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the order of Regulatory Authority. RERA Appeal No.135 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal as
well as the order of the Regulatory Authority. RERA Appeal Nos.198 and 200 of 2025 have been filed challenging a common order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal along with the orders passed by the Regulatory Authority. RERA Appeal No.220 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal along with the order passed by the Regulatory Authority. In RERA Appeal Nos.221 and 222 of 2025, a common order dated 26.08.2025 was passed by the Appellate Tribunal which order is under challenge in the said two appeals along with the orders passed by the Regulatory Authority. In all the cases, common issues of law/facts arise and, as would be apparent from the subsequent part of the present order, the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in all the cases deserve to be set aside and the matters deserve to be remanded to the Appellate Tribunal on a short point. With the consent of all, RERA-APPL No.92 of 2025 is being taken up as the lead case and the facts/documents have been noticed from the same. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant in all the cases has submitted that in all the cases, there is a specific agreement between the appellant and the allottee. Specific reference has been made to the flat buyer's agreement (page 119 of the paper book of RERA Appeal No.92 of 2025) which has been entered into between the appellant and the allottee Praveen Kumar Gupta to highlight the fact that as per clause 5.1, the possession was to be delivered within 60 days from the date of issuance of occupancy certificate of the flat to the allottee, subject to force majeure
circumstances. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further referred to clause 19 to show that "force majeure" has been specifically defined in the agreement itself and the same also includes Court orders/directions from any governmental or statutory authority and epidemics as well as any legislation or rule or regulation made or issued by the government authority restricting the developer from complying with any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Further, specific reference has also been made to clause 19.2 which specifically provides that the developer shall not be held responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided therein, if such performance is prevented due to "force majeure" conditions. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also referred to clause 'N' (page 122 of the paper book) to highlight the fact that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the said agreement. 4.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further argued that even as per the model buyer's agreement provided by the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017, clause 7.1, which is with respect to handing over possession of plot/unit/apartment, specifically provides that in case there is delay on account of "force majeure", Court orders, Government Policy/guidelines, decisions affecting the regular development of the real estate project etc., then in such situations, the allottee agrees that the promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the plot/unit/apartment. Learned senior counsel has further referred to the grounds of appeal (page 62 of RERA Appeal No.92 of 2025) to highlight the fact that the relevant clauses of the buyer's agreement
were not only relied upon by the appellant to contend that there was no delay on its part, but rather even the said clauses were reproduced in the grounds of appeals. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 would show that the said agreement, which is an admitted document between the parties, or its clauses have not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal filed by the appellant. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that once there is a specific contract between the parties, then it is the terms of the said contract which would govern the rights of the parties, more so, when the allottees have not even challenged the said agreement or any of its clauses on the ground of same being unconscionable or illegal and are rather claiming their rights under the said agreement.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further referred to clause 6.1 of the buyer's agreement to show that the right which is being claimed by the allottee is with respect to possession being given on or before 20.08.2021, as per clause 6.1(i), in the case of Praveen Kumar Gupta. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, it was necessary for the Appellate Tribunal to have considered the clauses of the agreement so as to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. 5.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant had, on 22.12.2025 produced two charts giving the details on the basis of which the extension/benefit of construction ban etc. was required to be granted to the appellant. The said charts were taken on record as Mark 'A' and Mark 'B' and were handed over to the counsel for the respondent(s)/respondents. Chart Mark 'A' is annexed as Annexure A-1 along with the present order
and chart Mark 'B' is annexed as Annexure A-2 along with the present order.
6.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that in Mark 'B', reference has been made to all the notifications and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court during which the construction was banned in the National Capital Region and also the details of the notification at the time when COVID pandemic was prevalent. It is highlighted that the first COVID wave was from 25.03.2020 upto 24.09.2020 and the second COVID wave was from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021. It is submitted that even the benefit of the second COVID wave and also of the period during which, as per orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and orders passed by the other authorities, the construction in the National Capital area had been stayed, has not been given by the Tribunal, although the agreement between the parties specifically provides for the same.
It is submitted that under Chart 'A', the details of the days of which the benefit is required to be given have also been calculated in each case and thus, in case the same is taken into consideration, then the appeals filed by the appellant deserve to be allowed. It is argued that since the agreement and its clauses have not been taken into consideration, thus, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside and the matters deserve to be remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision.
7.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as far as the judgment in the case of M/s Pragatej Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mr. Abhishek Anuj Sukhadia and Ors.
reported as 2024 NCBHC-AS 4357 is concerned, in the said case the due date had elapsed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and it was in the said background that it was observed that COVID-19 pandemic lockdown which was declared subsequently cannot come to the aid of the appellant for claiming any relief with respect to payment of interest. It is submitted that thus the said judgment is on completely different facts and does not apply in the present case, as all the notifications/orders relied upon by the appellant are prior to the due date of possession.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Section 6 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RERA Act') provides for extension of registration and does not deal with the rights and liabilities of the appellant and the allottee inter se and thus it is the specific terms of the agreement which would govern the rights of the parties inter se. It is submitted that even as per the explanation in Section 6 of the RERA Act, which has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal, it has specifically been stated that any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of a real estate project would also be included within the definition of "force majeure".
It has been submitted that the COVID first wave has been taken into consideration by the Authority for granting exemption and also keeping in view the explanation given in Section 6, even the COVID second wave, which was from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 should also have been taken into consideration for extending the time for giving possession and for the said period also, no interest could have been claimed by the respondent(s) or awarded by the Court.
the Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration the terms of the agreement and has not even observed that the terms of the said agreement would not apply in the present case.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S):
8.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that certain calculations made in the chart are not correct and it is further submitted that even in case the clauses of the agreement are taken into consideration, then also, the respondents-allottees would be liable for substantial relief. It is submitted that some of the documents which have been relied upon by the appellant in the present appeal and also before the Appellate Tribunal were not annexed along with the written statement and has submitted that in case the matter is to be remanded, then all the pleas, as are available to the respondents on the basis of the agreement(s) and on other aspects, be kept open. It is submitted that remand of the case should not be construed as an estoppel against the respondents from raising the said pleas. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
9.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.
10.
The fact that a specific flat buyers agreement has been entered into the between the appellant and the respondent-allottees in each of the cases has not been disputed before this Court. The agreement entered into between the present appellant and Praveen Kumar Gupta in RERA Appeal No.92-2025 has been placed on record at page 119 of the paper book. Clause 'N' (page 122), clause 5.1 (page 130), clause 6.1 (page 132) and clause 19
(page 145) of the said agreement are reproduced hereunder:- "N.
The Parties, relying on the confirmations, representations and assurances of each other to faithfully abide by all the terms, conditions and stipulations contained in this Agreement and all applicable laws, are now willing to enter into this Agreement on the terms and conditions. appearing hereinafter."
"5.1 Within 60 (sixty) days from the date of issuance of Occupancy Certificate, the Developer shall offer the possession of the Said Flat to the Allotee(s), Subject to Force Majeure circumstances, receipt of Occupancy Certificate and Allotee(s) having timely complied with all its obligations, formalities or documentation, as prescribed by Developer in terms of the Agreement and not being in default under any part hereof including but not limited to the timely payment of installments as per the Payment Plan, stamp duty and registration charges, the Developer shall offer possession of the Said Flat to the Allotee(s) within a period of 4 (four) years from the date of approval of building plans or grant of environment clearance, (hereinafter referred to as the "Commencement Date"), whichever is later."
"6.1 Subject to the Force Majeure conditions, the Developer shall be considered under a condition of default, in the following events:
(i) Developer fails to provide ready to move in possession of the Said to the Allotee(s) on or before 20/08/2021. For the purpose of this Clause, 'ready to move in possession' shall mean that the Said Flat shall be in a habitable condition which is complete in all respects and for which Occupancy Certificate has been issued by the concerned Governmental Authority;
(ii) Discontinuance of the Developer's business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of the Act." "19.1 "Force Majeure" means any event or combination of events or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Developer which cannot (a) by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or (b) despite the adoption of reasonable precaution and/or alternative measures, be prevented, or caused to be prevented, and which adversely affects the Developer's ability to perform including but not limited to the following:
a.
act of God i.e. fire, draught, flood, earthquake, epidemics, natural disasters;
b. explosions or accidents, air crashes, act of terrorism; c. strikes or look outs, industrial disputes; d. non-availability of cement, steel or other construction/raw material due to strikes of manufacturers, suppliers, transporters or other intermediaries or due to any reason whatsoever;
e. war and hostilities of war, riots, bandh, act of terrorism or civil commotion;
f. the promulgation of or amendment in any law, rule or regulation or the issue of any injunction, court order or direction from any governmental or statutory authority that prevents or restricts the Developer from complying with any or all the terms and conditions as agreed in the Agreement; or g. any legislation, order or rule or regulation made or issued by the Governmental Authority or if any Governmental Authority refuses, delays, withholds, denies the grant of necessary approvals/certificates for the Project/Said Flat/ Said Building or if any matters, issues relating to such approvals, permissions, notices, notifications by the
Governmental Authority(ies) becomes subject matter of any suit / writ before a competent court or; for any reason whatsoever;
h. Any event or circumstances analogous to the foregoing." 19.2 The Developer shall not be held responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided herein if such performance is prevented due to Force Majeure conditions.
19.3 In the event, the offer of possession of the Said Flat is delayed due to Force Majeure, the time period for offering possession shall stand extended automatically to the extent of the delay caused under the Force Majeure circumstances. The Allotee(s) shall not be entitled to any compensation for the period of such delay. The Allotee(s) agrees and confirms that, in the event it becomes impossible for the Developer to implement the Project due to Force Majeure conditions, then this Agreement and the allotment of the Said Flat hereunder shall stand terminated and the Developer shall refund to the Allotee(s) the entire amount received by the Developer from the allotment within 45 (forty-five) days from that date on which Developer confirms that it has become impossible for the Developer to implement the Project.
The Developer shall intimate the Allotee(s) about such termination at least 30 (thirty) days prior to such termination, of the Agreement. After refund of the money paid by the Allotee(s), the Allotee(s) agrees that it shall not have any rights, claims etc. against the Developer and that the Developer shall be released and discharged from all its obligations and liabilities under this Agreement."
11.
A perusal of the above clauses would show that as per the same, the possession was to be handed over by the Developer to the allottee
subject to force majeure circumstances. "Force majeure" has been specifically defined in Clause 19.1 and the same includes epidemics, promulgation of any rule, law, regulation, issuance of any Court order or direction from any governmental or statutory authority that prevents or restricts the developer from complying with any or all the terms and conditions as agreed in the agreement. It also includes any event or circumstance analogous to the specific details given in clause a to g. Further under clause 19.2, it is also specifically provided that the developer shall not be held responsible or liable for not performing any of its obligation or undertaking provided therein, if such performance is prevented due to force majeure conditions. Further, clause 19.3 provides that in the event the offer of the possession of said flat is delayed due to force majeure, the time period for offering possession would stand extended automatically to the extent of the delay caused under the force majeure circumstances. 12.
The said agreement was specifically referred to in the grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal and even most of the clauses, which have been reproduced hereinabove, were also reproduced in the grounds of appeal. It is not disputed before this Court that both the parties are governed by the said agreement and the clauses of the said agreement. A perusal of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Authority in the case which is subject matter of RERA Appeal No.92 of 2025 would show that even in the chart which has been prepared and reproduced in paragraph 2 of the order, specific reference has been made to clause 5.1 of the agreement with respect to possession which also contains the fact that the delivery of
possession would be subject to force majeure circumstances. While recording the facts of the complaint in paragraph 3(d) in the order, reference has been made to the averment made by the respondent-allottee to the time frame mentioned in the buyer's agreement. In paragraph 6, the defence raised by the present appellant on the basis of the clauses of the agreement as well as the various orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the orders passed by the various authorities have been taken note of. Even the finding of the Authority has been given after taking into consideration the clauses of the buyer's agreement.
However, a perusal of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in all the appeals would show that the clauses of the said agreement, more so the one which have been highlighted before this Court and also in the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and are very material for the determination of the cases, have not been taken into consideration while passing the final order. There is no finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the clauses of the said agreement are not binding on the parties and are not required to be taken into consideration. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal, while finally adjudicating the case, has missed an important issue which would be required to be taken into consideration before the rights of the parties in the first appeal filed by the appellant are finally adjudicated. 13.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that all the present appeals deserve to be partly allowed and the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in all the cases deserve to be
set aside and are accordingly set aside and the Appellate Tribunal is requested to decide the appeals filed by the present appellants afresh after taking into consideration the abovesaid clauses of the agreement and all other aspects.
14.
The parties through their counsel/personally would appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 15.01.2026.
15.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the exact number of days of which the benefit is to be given to the appellant and it would be open to all the parties to raise all the pleas on the said aspect as well as on all other aspects before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal would decide the appeals afresh independently, in accordance with law.
16.
It would be relevant to note that on 03.07.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- "Present:
Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellant.
*** Notice of motion for 22.09.2025.
The amount of pre-deposit made by the present appellant before the Ist Appellate Court would be released to the complainant, if not already released, subject to the decision of the present appeal and also subject to the complainant furnishing adequate security for the same.
July 03, 2025"
Similar orders were passed in all the cases.
17.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant in all the above said cases have not got the amount released and
the same is lying before the Authority at Gurugram. The Authority at Gurugram is directed to put the said amount in all the cases in a Fixed Deposit bearing the highest rate of interest and the said amount would not be released till the time the Appellate Tribunal decides the matter afresh and would be released after the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, in accordance with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal.
18.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 24th, 2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
Yes