Kabra and Associates v. Hemdev: the election-of-remedies rule between RERA and the consumer forum

M/s Kabra and Associates v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev is the case that overlaid the election-of-remedies discipline on the RERA-CPA concurrent-forum architecture that Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni (November 2020) had built. The two-judge bench of Sanjay Kumar, J. and K. Vinod Chandran, J. — deciding on 4 February 2026 — set aside the NCDRC's order of 23 August 2023 (which had held that a consumer complaint was maintainable despite the homebuyer's prior RERA invocation) and held that the homebuyer, having elected the RERA route on the cause of action, was foreclosed from a successive consumer-forum complaint on the same grievance.

The decision does not displace Imperia Structures's concurrent-jurisdiction rule at the outset. The two fora remain available to the homebuyer at the moment of first election. What Kabra forecloses is the second move — the migration mid-litigation, or the renewed invocation of the second forum after the first has been withdrawn. The concurrent-jurisdiction rule is preserved as a menu choice; it is not a buffet allowing repeated helpings.

The judgment is reported at 2026 LLBiz SC 109 and arises out of Civil Appeal No. 6936 of 2023. (Some secondary aggregators report the decision as of 5 March 2026; the LawBeat and LiveLawBiz sources with the case-number anchor support 4 February 2026, which we adopt.) The NCDRC order under challenge was dated 23 August 2023. The IREO Grace Realtech v. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241 line — on the protection of allottees against one-sided clauses and on the structuring of the CPA-RERA interface — supplied the election anchor.

The collateral context for the body discussion includes the Chief Justice's oral observations on 12 February 2026 in the Himachal Pradesh RERA office-transfer matter that RERAs "benefit only defaulting builders" and that homebuyers were "depressed, disgusted and disappointed". Those remarks are obiter, not binding holding, and we flag them with that caveat. The legal weight of Kabra rests on its operative reasoning and its disposition.

The statutory architecture

The RERA 2016 and the CPA 2019 operate as parallel statutory frames for homebuyer protection — each with its own forum scheme, remedial structure and procedural discipline.

RERA's architecture turns on Section 3 (mandatory registration of ongoing and prospective projects), Section 18 (refund with interest where the developer fails to give possession within the stated time), Section 31 (complaints to the Authority) and Section 71 (complaint procedure before the Adjudicating Officer). Section 79 bars civil-court jurisdiction over matters within the Authority's remit. Section 88 is the additive clause — the Act operates "in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force". Section 89 is the override clause for inconsistencies with other laws.

The CPA 2019 succeeded the CPA 1986 and expanded the consumer-forum architecture. Section 2(7) defines "consumer". Section 35 governs the District Commission's jurisdiction. Section 58 governs the NCDRC's pecuniary jurisdiction. The CPA 2019 preserved the additive logic of the 1986 Act and, in Section 100, retained the "in addition to and not in derogation of" formulation.

Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni (2020) had read these architectures together. Section 79 of RERA did not oust the consumer fora because those fora were not "civil courts" within the CPC sense; Section 88 preserved the CPA remedies; Section 71(1) proviso (allowing pending CP Act complainants to withdraw and approach the RERA Authority) implied that the CPA remedies were preserved alongside RERA; Section 18's opening clause — "without prejudice to any other remedy" — confirmed the concurrent architecture. The choice of forum vested in the allottee.

What Imperia Structures had not addressed — and what Kabra now resolves — is the temporal sequencing of the allottee's election. Can the allottee initiate one forum, exit it, and then approach the other on the same cause of action? Imperia Structures allowed concurrent recourse at the outset; Kabra sharpens the rule to one-time election.

The election-of-remedies doctrine that Kabra deploys has a longer common-law lineage in the Transcore v. Union of India (2006) and State of Bombay v. Adamjee Hajee Dawood & Co. (1951) line on the choice between competing statutory remedies. Kabra draws this lineage into the RERA-CPA interface and applies it as the analytical bridge between Imperia Structures's concurrent rule and the practical need for finality in the forum-election decision.

The factual matrix

The case arose out of a homebuyer-developer dispute involving M/s Kabra and Associates as the developer and Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev as the homebuyer-complainant. The grievance — on the materials publicly available — turned on delay in possession and consequential claims for refund or compensation under either route.

The homebuyer first approached the RERA Authority with a complaint on the cause of action. The proceedings before the RERA Authority were carried through to withdrawal — the homebuyer sought, and was granted, liberty to withdraw with liberty to refile before the RERA Authority. The homebuyer then filed a consumer complaint before the appropriate consumer forum, working up through the system to the NCDRC. The developer objected to the maintainability of the consumer complaint on the ground that the homebuyer had already elected the RERA route. The NCDRC, by order dated 23 August 2023, rejected the maintainability objection and held that the consumer complaint was maintainable notwithstanding the prior RERA proceedings.

The developer carried the maintainability question to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 6936 of 2023. The two-judge bench of Sanjay Kumar, J. and K. Vinod Chandran, J. allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC's order. The substantive grievance — refund, compensation, possession — was not adjudicated by the Supreme Court; the appeal turned on the maintainability question.

The Court's reasoning

The judgment works on two tracks: the architectural track on the relationship between Imperia Structures's concurrent-forum rule and the election-of-remedies overlay; and the doctrinal track on the application of the election principle to the particular facts of the case.

Concurrent jurisdiction preserved at the outset

The bench began by reaffirming Imperia Structures. The two fora — RERA Authority and consumer fora — are concurrent. Section 79 of RERA does not oust the consumer fora. Section 88 preserves the CPA remedies. The allottee has a genuine choice of forum at the outset of the dispute. The reasoning of Imperia Structures was not unsettled.

The bench was careful not to read Kabra as a declaration of RERA exclusivity. The proposition that the RERA Authority has exclusive jurisdiction over allottee-developer disputes — sometimes attributed to early readings of the Act in 2017-18 — was not endorsed. The concurrent architecture remained.

Election forecloses successive recourse

The doctrinal centre of the case is the election-of-remedies move. Sanjay Kumar, J. and K. Vinod Chandran, J. held that the homebuyer's invocation of the RERA route constituted an election. That election crystallised on the active invocation of the RERA Authority's jurisdiction — the filing of the complaint, the participation in the proceedings, and the withdrawal even if with liberty to refile. The homebuyer could not, having so elected, then approach the consumer forum on the same cause of action.

The reasoning has both an analytical and a practical limb. The analytical limb anchors the rule in the classical election-of-remedies doctrine — where the law affords multiple remedies, the party may choose, but the choice once made binds. The practical limb anchors the rule in the prevention of forum-shopping and successive litigation, which would otherwise be open under a pure concurrent-jurisdiction reading.

The bench drew the IREO Grace Realtech v. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241 line into the election-anchor analysis. IREO Grace had crystallised the one-sided-clause doctrine and had read the CPA-RERA interface in protective terms for the allottee. The election-of-remedies overlay does not displace that protection; it disciplines the procedural exercise of the protection. The allottee may choose either route — but having chosen, the route is the route.

The withdrawal with liberty

A textured question in the case was the effect of the homebuyer's withdrawal of the RERA complaint with liberty to refile. Did the withdrawal, even on liberty, reset the election and permit the homebuyer to approach the consumer forum afresh? The bench held that it did not. The election was on the invocation; the withdrawal-with-liberty preserved the RERA route as the available route to which the homebuyer could return, but did not open the consumer forum as a fresh route on the same cause of action.

The reasoning has implications for litigation tactics. A withdrawal of a RERA complaint — even on the most generous "liberty to refile" terms — does not reset the election. The homebuyer remains within the RERA track for that grievance. Migration to the consumer forum on the same cause is foreclosed.

The NCDRC order set aside

The bench held that the NCDRC's order of 23 August 2023 had not engaged the election-of-remedies analysis. The NCDRC had read Imperia Structures as a concurrent-jurisdiction rule simpliciter and had allowed the consumer complaint to proceed on that basis. The bench corrected the reading and set the order aside. The substantive grievance was, by implication, left to be pursued by the homebuyer through the RERA route to the extent permitted.

The doctrinal contribution

Kabra and Associates v. Hemdev did three pieces of doctrinal work.

It narrowed the concurrent-jurisdiction rule of Imperia Structures (2020) by overlaying election-of-remedies discipline. Concurrent jurisdiction is preserved at the moment of first election; successive recourse after election is foreclosed. The architecture is now "menu choice" rather than "buffet".

It aligned the RERA-CPA interface with the classical election-of-remedies line drawn from Transcore v. Union of India (2006) and State of Bombay v. Adamjee Hajee Dawood & Co. (1951). The reasoning operates as an analytical bridge — Imperia Structures speaks to the moment of first invocation; the Transcore / Adamjee line speaks to the binding character of the choice once made.

It implicitly engaged the 2024-25 HC divergence on the RERA-arbitration interface. Pallab Ghosh v. Simplex (Gauhati HC 2024), which permitted arbitration as a parallel route, and Rashmi Realty Builders v. Rahul Pagariya (Bombay HC 2024, Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), which held RERA disputes under Sections 12 and 18 non-arbitrable, sit on opposite sides of a related question. Kabra's election-discipline reasoning is structurally consistent with the Rashmi Realty Builders line.

What the judgment did not decide

The contours of "same cause of action". Kabra applies where the RERA and consumer complaints rest on the same cause of action. Where the grievances are distinct — for example, a RERA complaint on possession delay and a consumer complaint on subsequent post-possession defects — the election-discipline analysis does not foreclose the second forum. The contours of the "same cause of action" inquiry will be worked through case-by-case.

The treatment of an aborted RERA invocation. Kabra held that withdrawal with liberty does not reset the election. The narrower question — whether a RERA invocation that is dismissed for non-prosecution or for failure to comply with the Authority's procedural requirements similarly forecloses the consumer route — was not directly addressed. The election-discipline reasoning is likely to extend to it, but the point awaits a fit case.

The RERA-IBC interface. Kabra speaks to the two-forum RERA-CPA election. The third forum — homebuyer-as-FC under Section 7 of the IBC (per Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India (2019)) — was not in issue. The triple-forum architecture of Pioneer Urban still operates; whether Kabra's election-discipline extends to the RERA-IBC choice, or to the post-Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021) collective-action Section 7 gateway, is a question for another day.

The treatment of RERA-arbitration sequencing. Aftab Singh / Imperia Structures hold the arbitration clause out of the RERA-CPA route. Kabra sharpens the RERA-CPA election. The narrower question — whether an allottee who has invoked arbitration on the contractual route is precluded from the RERA / consumer fora — is left for the HC-divergence line to work through.

The doctrinal arc

The doctrinal line in which Kabra sits runs through three phases.

The first phase is the post-RERA concurrent-forum architecture. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India (2019), three-judge bench of Nariman, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., and Surya Kant, J., supplied the canonical triple-forum doctrine — homebuyer as allottee under RERA, consumer under CPA, and financial creditor under IBC. Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni (November 2020) applied the concurrent-forum rule to the RERA-CPA pair. IREO Grace Realtech (P) Ltd v. Abhishek Khanna (January 2021) crystallised the one-sided-clause doctrine and absorbed Aftab Singh into the RERA-CPA frame.

The second phase is the RERA validation and IBC coordination phase. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of UP (November 2021), three-judge bench of U.U. Lalit, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. (author), and Aniruddha Bose, J., confirmed retroactive (not retrospective) RERA application to ongoing projects and the State-Rule MCLR-plus interest formula. Manish Kumar v. Union of India (January 2021), three-judge bench of Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J., and K.M. Joseph, J., validated the Section 7 IBC threshold of 100 allottees / 10 per cent for real-estate FC applications and preserved the RERA + CPA remedial alternatives.

The third phase — Kabra — narrows the concurrent-forum rule by overlaying election-of-remedies discipline. The RERA-CPA interface is now organised as: concurrent jurisdiction at the outset (Imperia Structures) + binding election once made (Kabra) + one-sided-clause protection on the merits (IREO Grace) + assignee/secondary-market standing (Arifur Rahman Khan). The four-piece architecture is the working frame for 2026 onwards.

The 2026 legislative track — the RERA amendments under the Jan Vishwas Act 2026 (commencement 7 May 2026, decriminalising Section 68) and the IBC Amendment Act 2026 codifying project-wise CIRP — operates alongside Kabra's judicial development. The combined effect is a structural re-coordination of the RERA-IBC-CPA architecture into clearer lanes.

What practitioners take

For the homebuyer at the outset. The choice of forum is the strategic move. After Kabra, the choice is binding. Pleadings discipline: select the forum with awareness that the second forum is closed on the same cause of action. The RERA route offers the MCLR-plus interest formula (per state Rules) and the plenary jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 31; the CPA route offers the bench-determined just-and-reasonable compensation (per Arifur Rahman Khan) and the consumer-friendly procedural architecture of the NCDRC. Each has its quantification mechanics. The choice should be made with quantification in mind.

For the homebuyer mid-litigation. A withdrawal of the RERA complaint — even on the most generous "liberty to refile" terms — does not reset the election. The homebuyer remains within the RERA track for that grievance. Migration to the consumer forum on the same cause is foreclosed. The narrower move — pursuing distinct grievances in distinct fora — remains available, but the "same cause of action" inquiry will be policed.

For the developer. The maintainability objection under Kabra is now a real defence in consumer complaints where the homebuyer has previously invoked the RERA Authority. The pleading must establish (a) prior RERA invocation, (b) identity of cause of action, and (c) the homebuyer's withdrawal or other exit from the RERA track. The substantive grievance — once the maintainability objection succeeds — is left to be pursued before the RERA Authority.

For the NCDRC. The 23 August 2023 NCDRC order in Kabra was set aside for failing to engage the election-discipline analysis. Going forward, the NCDRC will need to work through the maintainability question with explicit attention to prior RERA invocation and the Kabra election rule. A pure concurrent-jurisdiction reading of Imperia Structures is no longer sufficient.

For the open contradiction with Imperia Structures. Kabra and Imperia are to be read together. Imperia allowed concurrent recourse at the outset; Kabra sharpens to one-time election. Counsel should brief both — Imperia on the concurrent-jurisdiction point and Kabra on the election-discipline point — by reference to the temporal posture of the homebuyer's election. The reading discipline is "menu choice, not buffet".

For the collateral context. The Chief Justice's oral observations of 12 February 2026 on RERA's efficacy are obiter and not binding. They signal an institutional concern about the operational reality of RERA and have supplied political cover for the May 2026 legislative reforms, but cannot be pressed in argument as precedent.

Related editorial pieces

• Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni: the concurrent-forum rule for RERA and consumer protection
• IREO Grace Realtech v. Abhishek Khanna: one-sided clauses and the unfair-trade-practice frame
• Pioneer Urban Land v. Union of India: the RERA-IBC interface and the triple-forum doctrine
• RERA May-June 2026 roundup: legislative reform, judicial discontent, and the new election discipline
• Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes: the one-sided clause and the consumer's interest entitlement