Comp. No. CC006000000193942
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

Complaint No. CC006000000193942

Mr. Vilas Janardan Gode
..Complainant/s
Vs
M/s. Nikunj Developers
..Respondent/s

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P99000014147

O R D E R
On Application of the respondent dt. 18.05.2024
(16.10.2024)
(Date of Hearing: 23.07.2024)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member 2, MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Aditya Deolekar for Complainant/s
Ld. Adv. Omkar Kulkarni for Respondent/s

1. The respondent has filed present application requesting that by allowing present
application for delay caused in filing reply may be condoned and reply may be
taken on record.

2. In short the facts of the application are as follows:

3. According to the respondent, the complainant has filed present complaint for
seeking interest from respondent u/s 18 of the RERA Act, 2016 for the delay in
handing over of possession of the flat. The complaint was listed on 08.01.2024
on that date the representative of respondent appeared and requested to adjourn
the matter so as to enable the respondent to engage the advocat,. time till

22. 01.2024 was granted to the respondent to file a reply.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp. No. CC006000000193942

4. The respondent approached to an advocate and briefed the advocate to appear
in the above matter and file reply to the complaint. The
person from the
respondent’s office handed over all the relevant papers relating to the complaint
to the advocate for drafting reply. The representative from office of respondent
was following up the matter with the said advocate, however, despite of lapse of
sufficient time, the said advocate did not take any steps for drafting reply. The
respondent was not getting proper response from the said advocate.
Hence,
respondent approached their present advocate for representing the respondent
in the above complaint.

5. According to the respondent the matter listed on 27.02.2024, on the said date,
junior advocate from the office of the present advocate attended the matter and
requested adjournment for filing reply as the said advocate was handed the
papers and proceedings
only couple of days before the said date. The matter
was adjourned for filing reply. The respondent on 29.02.2024 received notice of
hearing from MahaRERA that the complaint will be listed for hearing on

31. 07.2024.
The respondent was under bonafide impression that the
respondent can file its reply before next date of hearing.
The partner of the
respondent Haresh Sanghavi who is possessing comprehensive knowledge of
the present matter and in charge of the legal matter, had underwent stomach
surgery in 2023 and consequently due to his health conditions, he is not
attending office routinely.
Due to the said reasons the said partner could not
provide instruction for the purpose of drafting and filing
reply to the above
complaint, due to aforesaid reasons, some delay has occurred in filing reply to
the complaint.

6. According to the respondent, the respondent filed its affidavit in reply by
uploading the same on MahaRERA website on 02.04.2024 and copy of the same
was also served upon the advocate of complaint on 02.04.2024. The respondent
has filed its reply well in advance before the next date of hearing i..e. 13.05.2024.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp. No. CC006000000193942
According to the respondent, the delay if any in filing the reply has been caused
on account of bonafide reasons and the same is not deliberate, in the interest of
justice, and to have fair trial the reply filed by the respondent deserves to be
taken on record. According to the respondent, no prejudice would be caused to
the complainant, if the present application is allowed and the reply filed by the
respondent is taken on record as the hearing of the complaint has not yet
commenced. The great prejudice and irreparable loss and injury will be caused
if the present application is not allowed and the reply of the respondent is not
taken on record.

7. The other side has not filed reply to the present application.

8. Heard advocate of both the parties. The advocate of the complainant submitted
that reasons mentioned for non filing reply in time are vague and not
admissible.
The conduct of the respondent is required to be considered. It is
submitted that present complaint is filed in the year 2021. I have gone through
the proceedings.
It is seen that the complainant has filed present complaint
seeking payment of interest for every month of delay till handing over of the
possession as per Section 18 of RERA Act. The respondent alongwith present
application uploaded reply to the complaint.
It is mentioned in the application
that the partner of the respondent Shri Haresh Sanghavi who is possessing
comprehensive knowledge
of the present matter and in charge of the legal
matter had underwent stomach surgery in Sept. 2023 and consequently due to
his health problem, he is not attending office routinely and therefore, Harish
Singhvi could not provide requisite instruction for the purpose of drafting and
filing reply to the complaint, therefore, there is delay for uploading reply of the
respondent. Admittedly, no any documentary proof to support the reasons
mentioned in the application uploaded by the respondent. I have stated above,
the
respondent
alongwith
application uploaded reply to the complaint.
Moreover, the complainant has not filed reply to this application. In my opinion,

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp. No. CC006000000193942
in order to adjudicate the complaint, on merits at once for all, by imposing cost
upon the respondent, it is desirable to condone the delay caused for uploading
reply by the respondent and it is necessary the reply of the respondent be taken
on record, Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R

1. The application is allowed.

2. The delay caused for uploading the reply is hereby condoned subject to
payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) payable to the
complainant. On payment of above cost, the reply of the respondent be taken
on record.
(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date : 16.10.2024

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2024.10.16 17:45:49
+05'30'