Doctrine of Election After Kabra: Why Choosing RERA Now Forecloses the Consumer Forum

Introduction : Home buyers in India had a choice as to whether to file a dispute against errant builders in the state Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) or the consumer forum. They could not have both as simultaneously as one venue would bar them from using the other. However, the Supreme Court in M/s Kabra and Associates & Ors. v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors has made the choice of either the RERA or the consumer forum a potentially crucial one as it sets out its impact on the dispute resolution process from beginning to end. Consequently, legal practitioners need to give the ruling special attention when dealing with home buyers in the immediate future.

Legal Framework, Real Estate Disputes

The Kabra ruling adds a new dimension to the doctrine of election of remedies. In effect, the Court’s directive makes the principle even more elaborate than before. The Supreme Court has determined that the doctrine will apply even more strictly within the context of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016’s (RERA) sections 79 and 88. In this regard, it is important to note that section 79 withdraws jurisdiction from all civil courts over disputes amenable to the RERA’s purview. At the same time, section 88 permits buyers to seek remedies in other avenues alongside those specified in the RERA. Thus, these two sections contradict one another, and Imperial Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni is the landmark case that laid out the limitations of this very contradiction.

Ireo Grace Realtech

The doctrine of election of remedies was first applied in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna , but the judgment did not go as far as clarifying the parameters of section 88. Specifically, the decision did not answer the question as to whether the mere presentation of a complaint in one forum followed by the withdrawal of the same counted as an election. Similarly, the Ireo Grace Realtech ruling did not respond to the issue of whether buyers had to totally exhaust the remedies in one venue before resorting to the other. Therefore, the Kabra judgment’s primary objective was to address the said lacuna.

The Kabra Case - Election of Remedies

Rekha and Rajkumar Hemdev bought flats from Kabra and Associates and subsequently filed a complaint with MahaRERA. The buyers argued that the builder failed to register the flats under Section 3 of RERA and requested the Authority to levy penalty on the errant developer under Section 18 of the act. Maharashtra dismissed the plea on the grounds that there was a mismatch between the builder’s name as provided by the Hemdevs and the one registered with RERA. Thereafter, the Hemdevs withdrew their complaint although the buyers reserved the right to re-file it. In 2022, the Hemdevs approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on the grounds that Kabra and Associates had denied possession of the flats. Ultimately, NCDRC admitted the Hemdevs’ complaint after determining that the objection raised by Kabra and Associates was without merit.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the NCDRC decision on the grounds that the Hemdevs had already filed a complaint with MahaRERA. By doing so, the buyers had elected the RERA as the forum for adjudicating their dispute with Kabra and Associates. Therefore, the NCDRC did not possess jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the Hemdevs’ right to re-file their complaint before MahaRERA was restricted because their withdrawal of the plea amounted to an election of remedies. The Hemdevs’ appeal to the NCDRC was an attempt to pursue remedies other than the ones provided in the RERA. In effect, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kabra and Associates as the RERA order presented the final decision between the two parties.

Why This Matters - The Election of Remedies

The Kabra judgment’s most significant contribution stems from its role in curtailing forum shopping. In effect, the court clarified that the mere filing and withdrawal of a complaint in one forum followed by another constituted election of remedies. Moreover, the decision closed out the ambiguity regarding the applicability of the doctrine of election of remedies to the RERA. Specifically, it responded to the uncertainty surrounding the scope of the word ‘in addition to’ as it appears in section 88 of the RERA. The Supreme Court lowered the threshold for granting election as it demonstrated that a party could make an election even when the first forum’s order was not final.

Same Cause of Action or Cause of Action, and Different Claims

It is important to recognize that the doctrine of election applies only to identical causes of action or claims. The doctrine is aimed at preventing forum shopping and the possibility of obtaining divergent verdicts. Therefore, if a buyer presents multiple causes of action or claims in a single petition, it is crucial to determine whether all the claims emanate from the same cause. This distinction is pertinent to RERA as it is common for buyers to present several grievances against developers.

The Impact on Buyer Complaints against Developers: Delayed Possession of Flat

The Kabra judgment applies to disputes that buyers bring against developers when the latter fails to deliver possession of a flat at the agreed time. In particular, RERA and consumer forum litigation dominate real estate-related disagreements. However, buyers should understand that the Supreme Court ruling alters their strategy when pursuing a dispute against a developer.

If Hemdevs had filed their complaint with the NCDRC first and then withdrawn their plea to re-file it before MahaRERA, a contrary verdict would not have followed. This is because the NCDRC would have acquired jurisdiction over their dispute with Kabra and Associates. Furthermore, the consumer forum could have awarded compensatory damages for distress and harassment in addition to directing a penalty against the errant developer. On the other hand, Hemdevs were deprived of these remedies as they elected the RERA by filing their complaint before MahaRERA. Therefore, buyers who approach RERA before a consumer forum runs the risk of losing jurisdiction in their case as the latter will be unable to address their grief beyond the remedies specified in the RERA.

The Impact on Buyer Complaints against Developers: Construction Defects

In addition to delayed possession, buyers also bring actions against developers for construction defects. For instance, a buyer could pursue a claim that involves repairing the defective property in addition to seeking compensation for the inconvenience brought about by the defect. The doctrine of election of remedies may bar such a buyer from pursuing remedies in more than one forum. Similarly, the Kabra ruling allows the defendant to argue that the two claims are not concurrent. It is important to recognize that the word ‘in addition to’ in section 88 permits the possibility of the application of the doctrine to claims that entail dissimilar remedies. Therefore, when filing a complaint, a buyer must carefully consider the type of remedies they intend to pursue in either of the two forums.

Does Election Require a ‘Final Order’ Before Opening the Doors of Another Forum?

It is unclear if the March 2026 ruling applies to the situation where a buyer’s initial forum petition is disposed of and the buyer then approaches another forum. In fact, Kabra ruling does not respond to the scenario where the initial complaint is withdrawn or dismissed. Consequently, several questions arise. For instance, whether a ‘final order’ needs to be passed before another forum gains jurisdiction over the disputed matter. Similarly, the Kabra judgment does not clarify whether the order that allows or refuses withdrawal of a petition counts as a ‘final order’. Finally, the ruling does not address whether the doctrine of election applies when some, but not all, allegations in a complaint are withdrawn. Similarly, the ruling does not answer the question as to whether the doctrine applies when a buyer presents their petition before the two forums concurrently, but at different times as was the case with Hemdevs’ dispute with Kabra and Associates.

Limitation Period

RERA and the consumer forum have different limitation periods for filing a petition. Therefore, buyers who do not choose their dispute resolution venue carefully risk losing jurisdiction as it may be too late to file a petition in the second forum. Therefore, legal practitioners need to take the limitation periods into account when assisting buyers in selecting the most appropriate forum.

Concluding Remarks: Considerations When Advising a Buyer on the Choice between RERA and Consumer Forum

The choice between the two dispute resolution avenues should depend on the buyer’s objectives. For instance, if a buyer’s primary concern is to obtain possession of the flat or a refund, then the RERA is the preferred option. On the other hand, if a buyer is seeking to recover the amount paid for the flat plus compensation for the inconvenience brought about by the developer’s default, then the consumer forum is the more appropriate venue. The RERA allows a quicker resolution of the dispute but the remedies are limited to what is provided in the RERA. On the other hand, the consumer forum takes a long time but offers the possibility for exemplary damages. Therefore, buyers need to consider these trade-offs when making their decision. It is important that legal practitioners make a record of their communication with the buyer regarding the choice of venue.

Other factors that buyers may consider when selecting the dispute resolution forum include the appellate options in either of the two forums. Additionally, buyers should take into account the risks that come with selecting either of the two venues. Therefore, it is crucial for the buyer to make an informed decision on the dispute resolution venue. The initial decision may set the course of the litigation and impact the outcome.

Author: Shraddha Singh in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References/Endnotes

1. M/s Kabra and Associates v Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev Civil Appeal No 6936 of 2023 (SC, 4 February 2026).

2. Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni (SC).

3. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd v Abhishek Khanna AIR 2021 SC 437, (2021) 1 SCC 529.

4. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, ss 3, 18, 79, 88.

5. Consumer Protection Act 2019.

6. LawBeat, 'Supreme Court: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Choosing RERA Remedy' (LawBeat, March 2026) https://lawbeat.in accessed 25 July 2026.

7. LiveLawBiz, 'Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order, Says Homebuyers Who Chose RERA Cannot Later Approach Consumer Forum' (LiveLawBiz, 13 March 2026) https://www.livelawbiz.com accessed 25 July 2026.

8. LegalKart, 'Supreme Court Clarifies: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Choosing RERA Remedy' (LegalKart, 16 March 2026) https://www.legalkart.com accessed 25 July 2026.

9. Bar and Bench, 'Locked into Your Forum Choice' (Bar and Bench, June 2026) https://www.barandbench.comaccessed 25 July 2026.

10. CourtKutchehry, 'Supreme Court: Homebuyers Can't Switch RERA to Consumer Court' (CourtKutchehry, 9 March 2026) https://www.courtkutchehry.com accessed 25 July 2026.