Developer Takeover & Buyer Protection: Stalled Project Resolution

Corrected on 7 November 2026. An earlier version misdated the Sapphire I order and attributed conditions to it that we could not support, including 30-day and 60-day windows, an 80% consent rule and a repo-rate interest formula. It has been rewritten from a press report of the order and the Act.

A developer offers you a stalled project "taken over" by a new company, and says all past problems are gone. Are they? Sapphire I in Kurla shows how complicated this can be, and why you should read the order before you pitch.

What Was Reported on Sapphire I

The Free Press Journal, 21 April 2026, reports a MahaRERA order dated 24 March 2026. We have read that report, not the order.

• Background: ITMC Developers registered the project in 2017. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority terminated it in March 2024 under the Slum Act, and appointed a new developer, now Mahadev Realtors Powai.
• Not a Section 15 transfer: the appointment was treated as a statutory process, not a voluntary transfer.
• Registration: the old registration stays in abeyance, not cancelled, because the same land can't have two registrations. The new developer gets a fresh number after scrutiny.
• Liabilities: past liabilities stay with the outgoing promoter unless explicitly transferred. The new developer is a promoter going forward. The lender isn't a promoter.
• Safeguards: sums due to the outgoing promoter from the lender are ring-fenced for buyer claims, the old project account is frozen, the old promoter can't market or sell, and buyers can keep pursuing claims against it.

More than 20 homebuyers and investor groups objected, and the old developer cited pending High Court litigation, so this may not be the last word. It's one order on unusual facts.

The General Rule Is Different

Section 15 covers a promoter voluntarily transferring majority rights. It needs prior written consent from two-thirds of allottees and the Authority's prior written approval. The new promoter must then comply with all pending obligations, gets no extra time to complete, and is liable for breach or delay. Circular 24/2019 sets MahaRERA's procedure, including separate handling where a lender or creditor enforces security.

So under Section 15 a buyer may have a claim against the new promoter, while on Sapphire I's reported facts past liability stayed with the old one. Don't assume either applies. Sections 7 and 8 are a third route: on revocation, the Authority consults the government about remaining work, and the association of allottees has the first right of refusal.

Before You Market One

• Get the actual MahaRERA order and give it to the buyer.
• Check which registration number applies, and its completion date.
• Find out which route it is: Section 15, a statutory appointment, or Section 8.
• Check that you're listed as the new promoter's agent. Order 53/2024 covers this.
• Ask what happens to earlier buyers' agreements and payments. Don't guess.

The interest rate for any delay claim in Maharashtra is SBI's highest MCLR plus 2% under Rule 18, not a repo-rate formula.

What to Say

A fair line: "This is a rescued project, and its risks differ from a new one. Past claims may stay with the old developer, and that depends on the order. I'd suggest a lawyer reads it." Don't promise a completion date beyond what the new promoter has filed. Section 10(c) applies.

For Your Exam Preparation

Know Section 15's two-thirds consent and Authority approval. Try a topic-wise practice test.

Quick check: what does Section 15 require for a voluntary transfer? Two-thirds of allottees' written consent and the Authority's written approval.