MahaRERA Orders Lodha to Refund Over ₹6 Lakh to NRI Home Buyers After Loan Rejection

In a decisive ruling against alleged unfair practices, MahaRERA has directed Lodha Developers to refund ₹6.65 lakh to an NRI couple after their home loan application was rejected. The couple had booked a flat in Lodha Mulund, Mumbai, hinging on a verbal assurance from Lodha’s agents that the booking amount would be refunded if financing failed.

NRI Home Buyers Caught in Financial Limbo

Vaibhav Kishor Ambukar and Seema Ambukar, an NRI couple originally based in Russia during the booking period, had paid a total booking amount of ₹7,00,000 in 2 instalments during September and October 2021 for a unit in Lodha Mulund Project Tower 1. Prior to payment, the buyers clearly conveyed to the developer that their ability to purchase was subject to securing a home loan.

According to their complaint, Lodha sales representatives orally promised a full refund in case of loan failure or a financial emergency. However, when their loan application was declined in November 2021 due to documentation issues and the nature of the buyer’s contractual employment, the promised refund was allegedly refused. This refusal led the couple to lodge an official complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Lodha’s Defence Highlights Application Clause

Lodha Developers countered the claim by stating that the booking was governed by an application form signed on November 18, 2021. This form, they argued, contained a clause — Clause 3.5, specifically allowing the forfeiture of up to 10% of the unit’s total cost upon cancellation by the buyer.

The developer maintained that the complainants were fully aware of and agreed to the terms during the signing process. Given this contractual clause, Lodha stood by its decision to retain the booking amount despite the home loan’s failure.

MahaRERA’s Observations and Final Order

In an order dated June 10, 2025, the regulatory authority rejected Lodha's stance, observing that no formal Agreement for Sale had been executed at the time between the parties. MahaRERA found the forfeiture clause to be “one-sided, unconscionable, and unenforceable” in light of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

“The complainants’ intention to withdraw was based on a genuine financial inability rather than ill-faith,” read the order. “The application appeared only partially filled out and carried no counter-signature from Lodha’s representatives. Furthermore, it was signed just nine days before the refund was requested.”

Consequently, MahaRERA ordered Lodha to refund ₹6.65 lakh (from the ₹7 lakh paid by buyer) to the buyers no later than July 15, 2025. In case of non-compliance, the refund will bear interest at an annual rate 2% higher than the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate.

Additionally, the regulatory body awarded ₹20,000 as compensation to cover the cost of filing the complaint.

Read More:Liquor Industry Warns Maharashtra’s Record IMFL Duty Hike !

Implications for Developers and Buyers Alike

This verdict serves as a key precedent in India’s real estate sector. It reinforces that blatantly one-sided clauses, especially those not ratified in a registered sale agreement, may not withstand the scrutiny of customer-centric laws embedded in RERA.

The real estate sector in Maharashtra continues to register a high volume of consumer grievances. According to recent figures, MahaRERA has received over 29,000 complaints involving nearly 5,500 real estate projects, underscoring systemic challenges in buyer-developer relationships.

Conclusion

The MahaRERA ruling to refund ₹6.65 lakh to NRI homebuyers after loan denial sets an important benchmark for transparency and accountability in the real estate sector. By identifying and rejecting one-sided clauses and affirming the right to refund in good-faith cancellations, the decision stands as a reaffirmation of buyer protection mechanisms embedded in RERA.

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities or companies mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation or investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions.

Investments in the securities market are subject to market risks. Read all the related documents carefully before investing.