Legal and RERA
UP REAT sets aside refund order against Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech in Jivesh Goel case
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has set aside a refund order that the UP RERA Authority passed against Uppal-Chadha Hi-Tech Developers in a complaint filed by allottee Jivesh Goel. The Tribunal found the Authority should first have decided a withdrawal application already on its record. The ruling is dated 29 September 2026 and was reported on 16 October 2026.
| Tribunal | Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UP REAT), Appeal-387/2022 |
|---|---|
| Ruling date | 29 September 2026 |
| Reported | 16 October 2026 |
| Order challenged | Refund order dated 3 March 2022 in Complaint No. NCR144/09/81023/2021 before the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority |
| Outcome | Refund order set aside; withdrawal application allowed; complaint dismissed as withdrawn |
| Liberty granted | Fresh complaint for possession of the allotted plot, with delay interest, if advised and in accordance with law |
| Costs | No order as to costs |
| Developer | Uppal-Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Private Limited, UP RERA Reg. No. UPRERAPRM5538 |
| Credit rating status | Crisil withdrew its rating on bank loan facilities of Rs 700 crore on 13 January 2026; Brickwork Ratings assigned ratings on Rs 200 crore of bank facilities with a Stable outlook on 23 February 2026 |
What the Tribunal decided
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal by allottee Jivesh Goel against Uppal-Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Private Limited. Jivesh Goel had challenged a March 2022 order of the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority that directed a refund. The Tribunal set that order aside because the Authority had decided the complaint without first disposing of a withdrawal application that was already before it.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, dismissed the complaint as withdrawn, and gave the allottee liberty to file a fresh complaint seeking possession of the allotted plot along with delay interest. The Tribunal's text refers only to a plot allotted to the allottee. It does not name the plot, its size, or its price.
Timeline of the case
- 27 and 28 December 2021: the allottee sent withdrawal requests by email.
- 27 December 2021: the Authority heard oral arguments and reserved its orders.
- 6 January 2022: a formal withdrawal application reached the Regulatory Authority.
- 3 March 2022: the Authority issued the refund order without hearing or deciding the withdrawal application.
- 29 September 2026: the Tribunal set the refund order aside.
- 16 October 2026: the ruling was reported in legal digests.
The reasoning
The Tribunal read Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 as giving a delayed-project allottee a choice. The allottee may seek a refund with interest, or stay in the project and seek possession with delay interest. The Tribunal found no provision in the Act or the Rules that limits this choice to a single use before final adjudication.
The Act has no express withdrawal provision. The Tribunal said the Authority must still follow natural justice under Section 38(2), and that the Code of Civil Procedure can be applied by analogy. Relying on Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC and the Supreme Court decision in K.S. Bhoopathy, it held that a complainant may withdraw before a final order, though leave to file afresh depends on the usual conditions.
The Tribunal held that the Authority's failure to hear and decide a pending withdrawal application was inconsistent with natural justice. It also noted that the promoter had neither cancelled the allotment nor refunded money under the impugned order, so no vested right or prejudice to the promoter was shown.
The developer and its recent record
Uppal-Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Private Limited is a special-purpose vehicle set up by the Wave Group for the development of Wave Hi Tech City, a township in Ghaziabad. Brickwork Ratings, in a rating rationale dated 23 February 2026, described the company as part of the Wave Group and assigned ratings on bank loan facilities of Rs 200 crore with a Stable outlook.
Crisil Ratings withdrew its rating on the company's long-term bank facilities, rated at Rs 700 crore, on 13 January 2026. Crisil said the withdrawal followed a request from the company and a no-dues certificate from the banks. Its rationale also said that, despite repeated attempts to engage with management, it had received no information on the company's financial performance or strategic intent.
What it changes for buyers and investors
For allottees with pending complaints, the ruling confirms that a withdrawal application filed before a final order must be heard and decided. An allottee who has moved from a refund claim to a possession claim is not barred from doing so only because a refund was already sought once.
The refund order no longer stands in this case. The sources reviewed do not show that any refund was paid by the developer under that order. The allottee may now file a new complaint for possession, and any new complaint will be decided on its own merits under the Act.
Location context
The developer's Wave City township lies along NH-24 in Ghaziabad. The Tribunal's order does not tie the case to a particular project within Wave City, so this ruling should not be read as a finding about any other Wave City project by the same developer.
Other matters involving the developer
A separate consumer case involving the same developer was reported in late 2025. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found Uppal-Chadha Hi-Tech Developers guilty of deficiency in service for failing to execute a buyer's agreement and for withholding a booking refund. It ordered a refund of Rs 3,83,166 with 6% interest, payable by 30 December 2025, with 9% interest in case of default. That case is separate from the UP REAT ruling.
A UP REAT ruling covering January to June 2026 also involved the same developer on a different point, namely whether an appeal against an execution order needs the full decretal amount deposited.
What happens next
The allottee has liberty to file a fresh complaint for possession of the allotted plot with delay interest. As of 20 October 2026, no filing date, hearing date or timetable for that complaint has been reported. No further appeal by either party against the 29 September 2026 ruling has been reported.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Tribunal actually decide?
It set aside the UP RERA Authority's March 2022 refund order, allowed the allottee's withdrawal application, dismissed the complaint as withdrawn, and gave the allottee liberty to file a fresh complaint for possession with delay interest.
Why was the refund order overturned?
The Tribunal held that the Authority had decided the complaint on its merits while a withdrawal application filed in December 2021 and January 2022 was still pending. It said that failure to hear and decide that application was inconsistent with natural justice under Section 38(2) of the RERA Act.
Does this ruling apply to all RERA complainants?
The ruling is a Tribunal decision in one case. Its reasoning on Section 18 choices and pending withdrawal applications may be cited in other matters, but each case turns on its own facts.
Has the developer paid any refund?
The sources reviewed do not show that the developer paid any refund under the set-aside order. The Tribunal also noted that the promoter had neither cancelled the allotment nor refunded money under that order.
Which project in Wave City is involved?
The Tribunal's text refers only to a plot allotted to the allottee and does not name the project, plot number or plot size.