CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference as per MahaRERA Circular No
49/2025

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000259298


PRASAD RAMKRUSHNA DESHPANDE
…APPLICANTS/ORIGINAL
COMPLAINANT
Vs
SUNRAJ DEVELOPERS …RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P52700008000

Order

13. 01.2026
(Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

C.S Nilesh Awale for the Complainant
None for Respondent No.1
Advocate Lohana for Respondent No.2 i.e. M/s.
Karad Merchant Co-operative Credit Society Ltd

1. The complainant has filed the present application seeking amendment to
the original complaint. The Complainant has prayed for impleading M/s.
Karad Merchant Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. as Respondent No. 2 in
the present complaint. Further, to fix liability upon the proposed
Respondent No. 2 jointly and severally with Respondent No. 1, for any
breach of the provisions of the RERA as may be determined in the main
complaint. The brief facts of the amendment application as mentioned in the
application are as follows:

2. It is the contention of the Complainant that the complainant has filed the

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

present complaint under Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 seeking refund of the amount paid
along with interest, compensation and other reliefs in respect of the real
estate project titled “Raj Sapphire” being developed by respondent no.1.

3. It is the contention of the complainant that he has recently become aware
that M/s Karad Merchant Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. published an
advertisement dated 28.09.2025 in the Marathi daily “Aikya”, announcing
the auction and sale of 30 out of 36 apartments in the project “Raj Sapphire”,
which constitutes approximately 85% of the total apartments including
common areas and amenities, and that the said auction was scheduled on

29. 10.2025. It is further contended that the said auction notice has been
published without any prior intimation or notice to the complainant and
five other allottees under the said project and without informing
MahaRERA.

4. It is the contention of the Complainant that the proposed Respondent No.2,
being a creditor or mortgagee of the promoter, has initiated the auction
process in a manner prejudicial to the rights and interests of the existing
allottees including the complainant, who have vested rights in the project
under Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the RERA Act. The complainant has relied
upon the

JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India
vs. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. to contend that in
the event of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI Act, the provisions of
RERA would prevail and that the RERA Authority has jurisdiction to
entertain complaints against secured creditors.

5. It is further submitted that the auction proceedings initiated by the
proposed Respondent No. 2 are arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction,
having failed to consider the following given points:

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

a. The rights of allottees who have paid total consideration of the
apartment and are awaiting refund along with interest and
compensation as the provisions of RERA Act.
b. The absence of consent or acknowledgment from the authority and
the existing allottees.
c. The obligation of the promoter and financial institution to safeguard
the rights of allottees under project.

6. It is the contention of the Complainant that M/s Karad Merchant Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd. be added as Respondent No.2 in the present
complaint in order to enable this Authority to adjudicate upon all issues
comprehensively and to fix liability for any violation of the Act, Rules or
Regulations and also to fix liability for refund, compensation and interest
as claimed in the present complaint. The complainant has also relied upon
the

JUDGMENT

in Deepak Chowdhary vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.,
wherein it has been observed that lenders may, in certain circumstances,
fall within the ambit of “assignee” under Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act.

7. The proposed Respondent No.2 has filed its written statement opposing
the amendment application and has contended that it is a society registered
under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged
only in the business of accepting deposits from its members and lending
money to them. It is contended that society cannot be treated as a promoter
or an assignee and that it is merely a lender.

8. It is further submitted by the proposed Respondent No.2 that it has
advanced loans to the Respondent no.1 against mortgage of the subject
property and that the complainant’s unit bearing No.202 has already been
released from mortgage by issuing a No Objection Certificate dated

09. 04.2020. It is further submitted that the auction notice dated 29.10.2025

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

expressly excludes six units including the complainant’s unit No.202 and
therefore society has not made any claim over the complainant’s unit or his
proportional rights in the common areas.

9. It is further contended that there is no privity of contract between the
complainant and the proposed Respondent no.2 and that there is no cause
of action against the proposed Respondent no.2. It is submitted that the
dispute, if any, is only between the complainant and the promoter i.e.
Respondent no.1.

10. It is also submitted that the auction dated 29.10.2025 was not successful
and that the complaint itself is barred by limitation. It is further contended
that the society is only a secured creditor and not an assignee or transferee
and that RERA has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint against it.

11. The Complainant has filed the written submissions and contended the
same as follows:

12. The complainant contends that the promoter has, in effect, transferred and
assigned his rights in the project by executing a Mortgage Deed in favour
of respondent no. 2, thereby authorizing respondent no. 2 to sell the
apartments in the event of default by the promoter. It is contended that
such an arrangement amounts to a transfer or assignment of the promoter’s
rights in the project. However, in terms of Section 15(1) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a promoter is prohibited from
transferring or assigning his majority rights and liabilities in respect of a
real estate project to any third party without the prior written consent of
two-thirds of the allottees (excluding the promoter) and without the prior
written approval of the Authority.

13. The complainant further contends that the auction notice issued by
Respondent no. 2 is in violation of Section 15(1) of the Act, as neither the

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

approval of the Authority nor the consent of the requisite number of
allottees has been obtained. It is also contended that respondent no. 2 is
seeking to sell apartments along with open spaces, thereby creating third-
party rights in areas over which the existing allottees have rights under
their respective Agreements for Sale executed with respondent no. 1. It is
therefore contended that the proposed auction is illegal, arbitrary, and
without authority of law.

14. The complainant further submits that if Respondent No. 2 is permitted to
auction the said apartments including the open spaces, serious prejudice
would be caused to the existing allottees. It is contended that the incoming
promoter may evade responsibility in respect of the remaining apartments
in the project and that such auction would result in creation of third-party
rights and multiple litigations in respect of the open spaces, thereby
adversely affecting the interests of the remaining allottees in the project.

15. The complainant further contends that Respondent No. 2, in paragraph 11
of his reply, has stated that the project is being transferred through the said
auction without following the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act and
without fixing the liabilities upon the intending transferee/promoter. On
this ground, it is contended that the said auction is void ab initio.

16. I have gone through the complaint, amendment application, the auction
notice and the written statement filed by the proposed respondent no.2. It
is seen that the auction sale pertains only to 30 units out of 36 units of the
project “Raj Sapphire” and that the complainant’s unit No.202 along with
five other units has been specifically excluded from the auction. Thus, the
proposed respondent no.2 has not asserted any right, title or interest in
respect of the complainant’s unit or his proportional rights in the common
areas.

17. It is therefore evident that no prejudice is caused to the complainant by the

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

auction proceedings initiated by the proposed respondent no.2. The
dispute of the complainant is essentially against the promoter i.e.
respondent no.1 for refund of the amount paid along with interest and
compensation. The proposed respondent no.2, being only a lender, is
neither a necessary nor a proper party for effective adjudication of the
present dispute.

18. The

JUDGMENT

relied upon by the complainant in Deepak Chowdhary vs.
PNB Housing Finance Ltd. is clearly distinguishable on facts and the ratio
thereof is not applicable to the present case, as proposed respondent no.2
has neither taken over the project nor claimed any rights in respect of the
complainant’s unit.

19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Authority is of the
considered opinion that no case is made out for allowing the amendment
application and the same deserves to be rejected. Hence, I pass the
following order.
ORDER

1. The amendment application seeking impleaded of M/s Karad Merchant
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. as Respondent No.2 is hereby rejected.

2. No order as to cost.

Date: 13.01.2026


Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.01.13 16:38:13
+05'30'

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference as per MahaRERA Circular No
49/2025

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000259298


PRASAD RAMKRUSHNA DESHPANDE
…APPLICANT/ORIGINAL
COMPLAINANT
Vs
SUNRAJ DEVELOPERS …RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P52700008000

Order

13. 01.2026
(Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

C.S Nilesh Awale for the Complainant
None for Respondent No.1
Advocate Lohana for Respondent No.2 i.e. M/s.
Karad Merchant Co-operative Credit Society Ltd

1. The complainant has filed an application seeking stay in auction
proceedings dated 29.10.2025 initiated by the M/s Karad Merchant Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd to the original complaint. Further, Direct
Respondent no.1 and Respondent No.2 to maintain status quo in respect of
the subject property and not to create any third-party rights over the
apartments forming part of the said project. Any other order which deems
to be fit. The brief facts and reasons for stay of auction proceedings
mentioned are as follows:

2. It is the contention of the Complainant that the complainant has filed the

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

present complaint under Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 seeking refund of the amount paid
along with interest, compensation and other reliefs in respect of the real
estate project titled “Raj Sapphire” being developed by Respondent no.1.

3. It is the contention of the Complainant that he has recently become aware
that M/s Karad Merchant Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. published an
advertisement dated 28.09.2025 in the Marathi daily “Aikya”, announcing
the auction and sale of 30 out of 36 apartments in the project “Raj Sapphire”,
which constitutes approximately 85% of the total apartments including
common areas and amenities, and that the said auction was scheduled on

29. 10.2025. It is further contended that the said auction notice has been
published without any prior intimation or notice to the complainant and
five other allottees under the said project and without informing
MahaRERA.

4. It is the contention of the Complainant that the proposed Respondent no.2,
being a creditor or mortgagee of the promoter, has initiated the auction
process in a manner prejudicial to the rights and interests of the existing
allottees including the complainant, who have vested rights in the project
under Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the RERA Act. The Complainant has relied
upon the

JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India
vs. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. to contend that in
the event of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI Act, the provisions of
RERA would prevail and that the RERA Authority has jurisdiction to
entertain complaints against secured creditors.

5. It is further submitted that the auction proceedings initiated by the
proposed Respondent no. 2 are arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction,
having failed to consider the following given points:

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

a. The rights of allottees who have paid total consideration of the
apartment and are awaiting refund along with interest and
compensation as the provisions of RERA Act.
b. The absence of consent or acknowledgment from the authority and
the existing allottees.
c. The obligation of the promoter and financial institution to safeguard
the rights of allottees under project.

6. It is the contention of the Complainant that M/s Karad Merchant Co-
operative Credit Society Ltd. be added as Respondent no.2 in the present
complaint in order to enable this Authority to adjudicate upon all issues
comprehensively and to fix liability for any violation of the Act, Rules or
Regulations and also to fix liability for refund, compensation and interest
as claimed in the present complaint. The complainant has also relied upon
the

JUDGMENT

in Deepak Chowdhary vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.,
wherein it has been observed that lenders may, in certain circumstances,
fall within the ambit of “assignee” under Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act.

7. The proposed respondent no.2 has filed its written arguments opposing the
amendment application and has contended that it is a society registered
under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged
only in the business of accepting deposits from its members and lending
money to them. It is contended that society cannot be treated as a promoter
or an assignee and that it is merely a lender.

8. It is further submitted by the proposed respondent no.2 that it has
advanced loans to respondent no.1 against mortgage of the subject
property and that the complainant’s unit bearing No.202 has already been
released from mortgage by issuing a No Objection Certificate dated

09. 04.2020. It is further submitted that the auction notice dated 29.10.2025

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

expressly excludes six units including the complainant’s unit No.202 and
therefore society has not made any claim over the complainant’s unit or his
proportional rights in the common areas.

9. It is further contended that there is no privity of contract between the
complainant and the proposed respondent no.2 and that there is no cause
of action against the proposed respondent no.2. It is submitted that the
dispute, if any, is only between the complainant and the promoter i.e.
respondent no.1.

10. It is also submitted that the auction dated 29.10.2025 was not successful
and that the complaint itself is barred by limitation. It is further contended
that the society is only a secured creditor and not an assignee or transferee
and that RERA has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint against it.

11. The Complainant has filed the written submissions and contended the
same as follows:

12. The complainant contends that the promoter has, in effect, transferred and
assigned his rights in the project by executing a Mortgage Deed in favour
of respondent no. 2, thereby authorizing respondent no. 2 to sell the
apartments in the event of default by the promoter. It is contended that
such an arrangement amounts to a transfer or assignment of the promoter’s
rights in the project. However, in terms of Section 15(1) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a promoter is prohibited from
transferring or assigning his majority rights and liabilities in respect of a
real estate project to any third party without the prior written consent of
two-thirds of the allottees (excluding the promoter) and without the prior
written approval of the Authority.

13. The complainant further contends that the auction notice issued by
respondent no. 2 is in violation of Section 15(1) of the Act, as neither the

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

approval of the Authority nor the consent of the requisite number of
allottees has been obtained. It is also contended that respondent no. 2 is
seeking to sell apartments along with open spaces, thereby creating third-
party rights in areas over which the existing allottees have rights under
their respective Agreements for Sale executed with respondent no. 1. It is
therefore contended that the proposed auction is illegal, arbitrary, and
without authority of law.

14. The complainant further submits that if respondent no. 2 is permitted to
auction the said apartments including the open spaces, serious prejudice
would be caused to the existing allottees. It is contended that the incoming
promoter may evade responsibility in respect of the remaining apartments
in the project and that such auction would result in creation of third-party
rights and multiple litigations in respect of the open spaces, thereby
adversely affecting the interests of the remaining allottees in the project.

15. I have gone through the complaint, stay in auction proceeding application,
the auction notice and the written statement filed by the proposed
respondent no.2. It is seen that the auction sale pertains only to 30 units out
of 36 units of the project “Raj Sapphire” and that the complainant’s unit
No.202 along with five other units has been specifically excluded from the
auction. Thus, the proposed respondent no.2 has not asserted any right,
title or interest in respect of the complainant’s unit or his proportional
rights in the common areas.

16. It is therefore evident that no prejudice is caused to the complainant by the
auction proceedings initiated by the proposed respondent no.2. The
dispute between the complainant is essentially against the promoter, i.e.
respondent no.1 for refund of the amount paid along with interest and
compensation. The proposed respondent no.2, being only a lender, is
neither a necessary nor a proper party for effective adjudication of the

CC005000000259298

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

present dispute.

17. The

JUDGMENT

relied upon by the complainant in Deepak Chowdhary vs.
PNB Housing Finance Ltd. is clearly distinguishable on facts and the ratio
thereof is not applicable to the present case, as proposed respondent no.2
has neither taken over the project nor claimed any rights in respect of the
complainant unit.

18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Authority is of the
considered opinion that no case is made out for allowing the stay auction
proceeding and the same deserves to be rejected. Hence, I passed the
following order.
ORDER

1. The stay on auction proceedings hereby rejected.

2. No order as to cost.

Date: 13.01.2026


Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.01.13 16:39:21
+05'30'