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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000198712

SAARA JASHER …COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. GODREJ EXQUISITE

2. PRIYAMVADA NAVET …RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51700024496


INTERIM ORDER


(06.06.2025)

(Date of Hearing: 17.10.2024)


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


Adv. Anwar Landge for Complainant/s
Adv. Jennifer Michael for Respondent/s

1. The complainant has filed a present application to amend the promoter
name, which is Respondent No. 1 of the original complaint.

2. It is the contention of the complainant that the complainant has filed a
present complaint requesting this Authority to direct the respondent to
refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest on
delayed possession on the amount paid by the complainant as per
MahaRERA Rules and Regulations of RERA Act, 2016.

3. The complainant contends that the name of the project i.e. “GODREJ
EXQUISITE”, was erroneously mentioned as Respondent No. 1 when the
complaint was filed. It is submitted that the name of Respondent No. 1 is

“GODREJ MACBRICKS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY”.

4. The Complainant states that the present application for amendment is filed
only to a limited purpose i.e. to rectify the name of the Respondent No. 1 in
the Case title of the complaint.

5. According to the complainant, if the present application is allowed, no grave
injustice shall be caused to the respondent herein. On the other hand, this
application, if not allowed, shall cause further grievance to the complainant
who is already pressured by financial situations. Therefore, the complainant
requested that by allowing the present application the complainant may be
given the liberty to amend the name of Respondent No. 1 in the complaint as
stated above.

6. The other side has not filed any reply to this application.

7. This Authority has perused the amendment application.

8. It is the contention of the Complainant that the name of Respondent No. 1
has been erroneously mentioned, and it is a bona fide clerical mistake. The
Respondent has not filed a reply to the amendment application.

9. Considering the nature of the amendment, in my considered opinion, due to
the proposed amendment, the nature of the complaint is not going to be
changed. Moreover, in order to adjudicate the matter effectively and to avoid
multiplication of the litigations, it is just and necessary to allow the
Complainants to amend the complaint and to allow the Complainants to make
of consequential amendments to the body of the complaint. Hence, in my
opinion amendment application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the
following order.
ORDER

1. The amendment application filed by the Complainant is allowed.

2. The complainant is permitted to amend the complaint within the four

corners of this application.

3. The Complainant is directed to upload the amended complaint on
MahaRERA website within 15 days.


Ravindra Deshpande
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date: 06.06.2025


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.06.06 15:30:13
+05'30'

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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000198712

SAARA JASHER …COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. GODREJ EXQUISITE

2. PRIYAMVADA NAVET …RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51700024496


INTERIM ORDER


(06.06.2025)

(Date of Hearing: 17.10.2024)


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


Adv. Anwar Landge for Complainant
Adv. Jennifer Michael for Respondents

1. The Respondent No. 2 has filed the present miscellaneous application for the deletion
of the Respondent No. 2.

2. It is the contention of Respondent No. 2 that Respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary
party nor a proper party to the above complaint. Respondent No. 2 is the director of
Respondent No. 1 company and is neither a promoter nor owner of the said property
nor concerned with the said project in any manner. Respondent No. 2 is not involved
and, accordingly, is not a necessary or proper party for the adjudication of the real
controversy between the Complainant and Respondent.

3. Further, Respondent No. 2 contends that the Complainant has, without any basis,
wrongfully embroiled Respondent No. 2 and without a valid explanation for the
impleading of Respondent No. 2 in the purported dispute, as is required under the
applicable law. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 sought to delete the her name from the
array of the parties in the above complaint.

4. The Complainant has filed the reply to the miscellaneous application file by
Respondent No. 2 and has opposed the same.

5. In the said reply, the Complainant states that the name of Respondent No. 2 is very
much reflected on the MahaRERA portal and therefore, the present miscellaneous
application filed by Respondent No. 2 is nothing but a tactic to delay the proceeding.

6. The Complainant further stated that Respondent No. 2 herein is the promoter and
therefore there is no question of deleting the name of Respondent No. 2 from the
complaint.

7. The miscellaneous application of the Respondent and the reply of the Complainant
has been perused by this Authority.

8. I have gone through the MahaRERA website project details, which show that the name
of Respondent No. 2 is mentioned as the promoter of the project in question. As the
name of Respondent No. 2 is recorded as the promoter of the project in such
circumstances, in my opinion, it is not desirable to delete the name of Respondent No.

2. Moreover, the contentions of the Respondent No. 2 from this application is required
to be considered at the time of the final hearing of the complaint. Hence, at this stage
the request of the Respondent No. 2 to delete her name from the present proceeding
cannot be considered. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected. Therefore, I
proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The application filed by Respondent No. 2 is rejected.

2. Cost in cause


Ravindra Deshpande
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date: 06.06.2025.


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARA
O DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.06.06 15:30:52
+05'30'