Complaint No. CC005000000471465
and 2 Others

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC005000000471465

Atulya Raghukul Apartment Association and Ors.
... Complainant/s

Versus

Calyx Lenora Realty LLP and Ors.


... Respondent/s


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100017929

2. Complaint No. CC005000000471462

Atulya Raghukul Apartment Association and Ors.
... Complainant/s

Versus

Calyx Lenora Realty LLP and Ors.


... Respondent/s


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100018564

3. Complaint No. CC005000000471468

Atulya Raghukul Apartment Association and Ors.
... Complainant/s

Versus

Calyx Lenora Realty LLP and Ors.


... Respondent/s

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100018696


Coram: Shri. Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member – I/MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Pratik Badade appeared for the complainant.
Ld. Adv. Nilesh Borate appeared for the respondents.


INTERIM ORDER


(Wednesday, 09th July 2025)


Complaint No. CC005000000471465
and 2 Others

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainant above named has filed these 3 separate online complaint before
the MahaRERA on 06-08-2024 seeking various reliefs from MahaRERA as
prescribed under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development)
Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’), in respect of the respondent’s
registered project known as “Atulya Raghukul Bldg – D, B, F” bearing
MahaRERA registration No. P52100017929, P52100018564 and P52100018696
located at Haveli, Dist. Pune.

2. These complaints were heard by the MahaRERA today as per the Standard
Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of
complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued prior
intimation of this hearing, and they were also informed to file their written
submissions if any. Accordingly, both the parties appeared and made their
respective submissions.

3. During the course of hearing, the advocate for the respondents has submitted
that that NCLT proceeding has been initiated against the respondent no. 1 -
promoter under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016. Hence, the MahaRERA has perused the available record.

4. On bare perusal of the website of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the
MahaRERA has prima facie noticed that Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal
Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order in CP No. 204/ MB-IB / 2021 filed by M/s.
Madhura Infra Engineering Limited, i.e., the Operational Creditor therein, against
the respondent no. 1 herein, thereby admitting the respondent no.1 herein into
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in accordance with the provisions
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The advocate for the respondent


Complaint No. CC005000000471465
and 2 Others

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

no.1 has also submitted a copy of the said order passed by the Hon’ble NCLT
through an email sent today.

5. Further, as recorded in para 4 (of the operative part) of the said order passed by
the NCLT moratorium has already been ordered against the respondent no.1
promoter. In view thereof, as provided under section 14 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandates a moratorium on the institution and
continuation of legal proceedings against a Corporate Debtor (respondent no. 1
herein) in respect of which an order of admission into CIRP has been passed by
the Adjudicating Authority, applies to the respondent no. 1 herein. Hence
institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the
respondent no. 1 herein including execution of any

JUDGMENT

, decree, or order in
any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority is prohibited.

6. In the present case, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the NCLT, the
MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide these complaints against the respondent no.
1 at this stage and hence the present complaints are adjourned sine die. In the
meantime, the complainants may pursue their claim before the CIRP, if they so
desire. The respondent no. 1 is also directed to facilitate the complainants in filing
their claims, if any, before the CIRP.

7. However, liberty is granted to the complainants to approach MahaRERA after
final disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the respondent
no. 1, if need be.

(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA