Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate … vs M/S Malwa Vanaspati And Chemicals Co. … on 17 February, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
[@ SLP (C) NO. 19520 OF 2024]
THE MADHYA PRADESH REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S MALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICALS
CO. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal by way of special leave is filed
against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1428 of
2023 setting aside the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by
Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for
short, “the MPRERA”) and orders dated 04.08.2022,
07.11.2022, and also 24.11.2022 passed by the Madhya
Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the
MPRAT’).
3. The respondent no. 1 /Company is the owner of
certain industrial land situated in Village
Bhagirathpura, Tehsil and District Indore. The
Signature Not Verified
aforesaid land is earmarked for industrial use under
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.20
17:57:42 IST
Reason:
the Indore Industrial Development Plan, 2021. The
1
respondent No. 1 proposed to develop flatted industrial
factory project in the subject land and was granted
approval from the Joint Director, Town and Country
Planning on 07.12.2018 and building permission from the
Indore Municipal Corporation on 13.05.2019. MPRERA
initiated proceedings under Section 3 and 59 of the
Real Estate (Development and Regulatory) Act, 2016 (for
short, ‘the RERA’) based on the communication dated
18.09.2020 received from the Collector, Indore alleging
non-registration of the project under RERA by
respondent no. 1. By order dated 02.02.2022, the MPRERA
imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,27,98,800/- and imposed
restriction on the booking and sale of units in the
subject industrial project. The respondent no. 1
preferred an appeal before the MPRAT which directed
pre-deposit of 30% of the penalty amount under proviso
43(5) of the RERA. The respondent’s application for
waiver of the pre-deposit amount was rejected on
04.08.2022 and the Review Petition was also dismissed
on 07.11.2022. Consequently, MPREAT returned the Appeal
filed by the Respondent No. 1 as not entertainable in
the absence of pre-deposit. Aggrieved thereby, the
respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
2
the Constitution, contending that the RERA Act was not
applicable to sale of industrial plots.
4. During the hearing, the respondent no. 1 stated
that two plots sold earlier were cancelled and gave an
undertaking that they will not sell any plot for
residential and commercial purposes and develop the
project as an industrial project as per the permission
given by the competent authority. Taking note of the
undertaking, the High Court set aside the orders and
disposed of the Writ Petitions granting the liberty to
the Petitioner to take action as per the provisions of
RERA and in accordance with law as and when the
circumstances arise. The relevant portion of the order
is as under:
“9. In reply, the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that due to
Inadvertence and instead of undertaking
development for the flatted industrial
project, only two open plots were sold,
however, when it came to the knowledge of
the petitioner, the same have been
canceled/ annulled by way of decree of the
competent Court. As on date, no a single
piece of land has been sold to anyone. In
such circumstances, there is no violation
of the RERA Act and neither the petitioner
is required to get himself registered under
the RERA Act. In view of the aforesaid,
there is no requirement of any registration
under the RERA Act on behalf of the
petitioner.
3
10. At this stage, Shri V.K. Jain learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that due to
inadvertence two plots were sold directly,
however now the petitioner undertakes not
to sell any open plot for the purpose of
residential or commercial use but instead
the petitioner would be developing the
flatted industrial area as per the
permissions available from the competent
authority, therefore, in such a situation
the impugned orders passed by the
Respondent No. 2 and 3 deserves to be set
aside and the writ petition be allowed.
…
12. In view of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the writ
petition on merits at this stage, since the
petitioner has already given an undertaking
not to undertake some other activities for
which the permission is not available. In
view of the undertaking given by learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner, no
further adjudication is required in the
matter. Accordingly, the orders impugned
deserve to be set aside.”
5. We are of the opinion that the approach adopted by
the High Court is impermissible in law. The High Court
was exercising the power of judicial review in the
context of entertaining an appeal against the order of
MPRAT which came to be dismissed on the ground that
pre-deposit as required in the statute was not complied
with. Further, there was no occasion for the High Court
to set aside the penalty which was imposed in this
context.
4
6. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court
in Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2023 dated 25.04.2024 and
restore the Writ Petition to its original number. The
respondent can raise and contest the jurisdictional
questions before the High Court. We also permit the
appellant authority to assist the court about the
jurisdiction that it is empowered to exercise under the
provisions of the Act.
7. In view of the fact that the matter has been
pending for a long time, we request the High Court to
take up and dispose of the Writ Petition as
expeditiously as possible.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
5
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.5 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19520/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-04-2024
in WP No. 1428/2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore]
THE MADHYA PRADESH REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S MALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICALS CO. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 188525/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 188527/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 17-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anuj Tiwari, AOR
Mr. Aditya Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Adv.
Ms. Shalini Basu, Adv.
Mr. Shivendra N Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Christi Jain, AOR
Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv.
Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv.
Mr. Ritvik Bharadwaj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
6
2. The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSTT. REGISTRAR(NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
7
