Impleading Developer's Directors in RERA Proceedings Is Interlocutory and Decides No Liability: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) registered a suo motu case on irregularities and financial mismanagement in the Avalon Royal Park project at Bhiwadi, developed by GRJ Distributors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (para 3). By orders of 19.02.2026 in that case and in home-buyers' complaints, RERA impleaded the appellants, Vineet Jindal and Ajay Singal, as respondents (paras 4-6). The appellants said that the suo motu impleadment application did not name them, that RERA had earlier recalled notices to them, that one of them was not a director when the agreements were executed, and that no specific allegations were made against them (paras 4-5). The Appellate Tribunal dismissed their appeals on 28.04.2026 and 26.05.2026 (paras 2, 6).

An appeal under Section 58 of the Act of 2016 lies only where a substantial question of law arises, and the impleadment dispute fell to be examined within that limited scope (paras 10-11). The impugned orders were interlocutory: impleadment neither determines the appellants' liability nor adjudicates the complaints' merits, and they would have a full opportunity to reply, raise objections and establish the limits of their roles (para 12). It was not disputed that one appellant was a director/promoter from the company's inception and the other joined later in that capacity; whether their roles warrant liability, and the objection that no specific overt act is attributed to them, are for RERA to examine on the pleadings and material after a hearing (para 13). In the suo motu case, even if no application specifically sought their impleadment, that would not by itself make the order unsustainable: the power to implead a necessary or proper party does not necessarily depend on an existing party's application (para 14). Since the Tribunal had clarified that they would get a complete opportunity before RERA, no prejudice was shown; their roles, the applicability of the corporate veil and any liability were left open (para 15).