top of page
Maha RERA Order Details
Order Details:
Order - CC005000000096099
Order Type:
Order
Order Date:
Date not available
Complaint No.:
CC005000000096099
RERA No.:
P52100006134
Project:
Project name not available
Complainant:
MARVEL CASCADA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
Respondent:
RUNAL DEVELOPERS
Heard by/Member:
Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA
Subject:
Not available
Full extracted Order:
Comp. No. CC005000000096099
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hybrid Hearing held through video conference as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025
Complaint No. CC005000000096099
1. Marvel Cascada Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd
2. Mr Milan Visaria
3. Mr Pradeep Datar
..Complainant/s
Vs
1. Runal Developers
2. Marvel Sigma Homes Pvt Ltd
..Respondent/s
MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100006134
O R D E R
On Amendment Application filed by the complainant no.1 Society
(28.10.2025)
(Date of Hearing: 21.08.2025)
Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA
Adv. Hiren Patel for Complainant/s
Adv. Vishal Singhavi for Respondent No.1
Adv. Mansi Sail for Respondent No.2
1. The complainants have filed the present application.
2. In short the facts of the complaint are as follows:
3. It is contention of the complainants that alongwith other prayers, the complainants
have also prayed that the conveyance of complainant no. 1 society premises be
granted by the respondents.
4. After filing present complaint, the managing committee of the complainant no. 1
society decided in their meeting dt. 16.02.2025 which is also ratified by their general
body that, as there are more expedious forum notified by Maharashtra Government
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Comp. No. CC005000000096099
u/s 11 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flat Act, 1963 i.e. Competent Authority. The
complainant no. 1 ought to file deemed conveyance application before the Dist. Dy.
Registrar Co-op Societies, Pune, which is competent authority, authorized to give
deemed conveyance. Hence, the complainants seek to amend the complaint to
delete existing prayer for conveyance, specifically prayer clause 6(m).
The
proposed amendment is intended to take advantage of the expeditious forum
notified by Maharashtra Government. The proposed amendment does not alter the
nature of the present complaint. The complainants are seeking relief through this
application for deleting the prayer clause 6(m) from the complaint and they may be
permitted to pursue the conveyance before the competent authority or another
appropriate forum.
5. The other side has filed a reply and opposed the application and requested for
rejection of the said application. It is contention of the respondent the complainants
through this application seek to include additional pleadings related to RCS No.
1321 of 2021.
The said civil suit was filed against the respondents by the
complainant society prior to filing the present complaint. The complainants were
fully aware of this litigation which they have intentionally concealed while
uploading the present complaint. According to the respondents, prayer clause 6(m)
is a substantial part of the complaint, its withdrawal without sufficient explanation
or undertaking, appears to be a tactical move to initiate parallel proceedings and
causes prejudice to the respondents. The contention of the complainants that after
filing the written statement / reply, the advocate of complainant first time came to
know about filing of Civil Suit is baseless because said civil suit has been filed by the
complainants much prior to filing of present complaint.
6. The complainants through this application, want to delete the prayer clause 6(m)
from the complaint due to proposed amendment or deleting the prayer clause 6(m)
not changes the nature of the complaint. Hence, in my opinion, the application filed
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Comp. No. CC005000000096099
by the complainant for deleting the prayer clause 6(m) from the original complaint
deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass following order:
O R D E R
1. The application is allowed.
2. The complainants are permitted to delete prayer clause 6(m) from the complaint,
as prayed for.
3. Costs in cause.
(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-II, MahaRERA
Date : 28.10.2025
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.10.28 17:36:33
+05'30'
MahaRERA order loaded successfully.
bottom of page
