Sometimes real estate deals don't go as planned. Here's a story about a legal battle over a flat in Pune that ended with a court decision.
In this case, Avinash Vinayak Patwardhan and another were the owners of a flat in Tridal Co-operative Society, Prabhat Road, Pune. They agreed to sell it to Amit Vijay Bhatewara for ₹50,00,000. Amit paid ₹1,00,000 upfront, with the rest to be paid when the flat was officially transferred to him. The deal also included getting approval from the society for the transfer.
The problem began when the society didn't give the necessary approval. Despite efforts, including asking the Deputy Registrar for help, the approval wasn't granted. Meanwhile, Amit paid an additional ₹30,00,000, which was later refunded when the approval couldn't be obtained. A new agreement was made, promising Amit the flat once approval was granted.
On April 18, 2008, Avinash and the other owner wanted to cancel the sale and refund the ₹1,00,000. They repeated this on April 27, 2008. Amit, however, wanted the deal to go through and sent a legal notice on March 3, 2010, asking for the contract to be completed as originally agreed.
The Civil Judge dismissed Amit's case, saying he wasn't ready and willing to do his part of the contract. They noted his delay in taking action and that the society's approval wasn't legally needed for the sale. Amit appealed, but the District Judge agreed with the first decision, pointing out his lack of action as a main reason.
Amit's lawyer, Mr. Thipsay, argued that the courts misunderstood the evidence and that Amit's payment of ₹30,00,000 showed he wanted to move forward. He also pointed out that time wasn't a crucial factor in real estate contracts. However, the court found that Amit's insistence on the society's approval, which wasn't needed, showed he wasn't ready to complete the deal.
On January 28, 2026, Justice N. J. Jamadar of the Bombay High Court dismissed Amit's second appeal. The court agreed with the lower courts that Amit's delay and insistence on unnecessary conditions showed a lack of readiness to complete the contract.
Despite the dismissal, Avinash and the other owner agreed to refund the ₹1,00,000 deposit to Amit within four weeks.
This case highlights how crucial timely action and understanding contract terms can be in legal disputes over property.
