Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000302912

Veena Dwarkadas Bajaj


... Complainant/s

Versus

Adarsh Industrial Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
Je Bee Properties Pvt. Ltd


..Respondent/s


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800005832


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

Ld. Adv. Sunanda Kumbhat appeared for the complainant/s.
Ld. Adv. Aditi Prasad appeared for the respondent/s.

(

INTERIM ORDER

)
(

INTERIM ORDER

Pronounced on Monday,10th February 2025)
(Matter reserved for order on 23rd October 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainant above named has filed this online complaints before the
MahaRERA on 03-10-2022 seeking directions from MahaRERA, to the
respondent, for execution of the registered agreements for sale / to handover
possession of the said flats as prescribed under the provisions of sections 13 and
18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘RERA’), in respect of 4 flats bearing nos. 802, 803, 804 and 808 (hereinafter
referred to as ”the said flats”) in respect of the respondents’ registered project
known as “LINKPARK” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800005832
located at Borivali, Dist. Mumbai Suburban (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said
project’).


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2. This complaint was heard by the MahaRERA on several occasion on merits
and same was finally heard on 23-10-2024 on merits 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
arguments. The MahaRERA has heard the arguments of both the parties and also
perused the available record.

3. After hearing the argument of the parties the following Roznama was
recorded in the said hearings in these complaints.

23-10-2024: “Both the parties are present. The respondent has filed its reply to
the complaint raising the issue of maintainability of the complaint on 2 grounds
that i) in respect of flat No. 803 which forms the part of the complaint, there is
already a civil suit pending and ii) one complaint has been filed in respect of 4
flats. However, the complainant has refuted these contentions of the respondent
and has pointed out that the respondent no. 1 has acted as a confirming party to
the transfer deed executed in favour of the respondent no.2. Therefore, the
respondent no. 1 is liable to comply with the obligations under the said
agreement (transfer deed)and therefore, the complaint is maintainable. The
complainant also pointed out to the facts of the case that there were total 8 flats
out of which agreements for sale were executed in respect of 4 flats, however, the
said 4 flats which form the part of the complaint, although executed but the
registration did not happen because of the reasons known to the respondent; the
said transfer deed was actually made by the respondent no. 2 viz Je Bee
Properties in which the Ahujas were directors, in favour of the complainant and
the respondent no. 2 signed the said transfer deeds in favour of the complainant


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

and the respondent no. 1 is a confirming party as the directors were common.
Therefore, the complainant has prayed for registration of the transfer deed as the
stamp duty has also been paid. In view of the above, as both the parties have
filed reply and rejoinder and have contended these may be treated as their
written submissions as well, the matter is reserved for orders on the issue of
maintainability of this complaint as raised by the respondent. The future course
of action in this complaint would be decided once the said order on the issue of
maintainability is issued.”

4. Despite to the directions given in the hearing both the parties have not
uploaded any documents on records of MahaRERA after 23-10-2024. Hence, the
MahaRERA has perused the available record.

5. It is the case of the complainant that, she has entered into and executed
deed of transfer in respect of 8 flats under construction (in the sale component)
in the said project for a total consideration of Rs.10,75,16,000/-. Out of the deeds
of transfer for the 8 flats (under construction), 4 agreements in respect of Flat Nos.
801, 805, 806 and 807 were executed with Sai Laxmi Properties Pvt. Ltd. as the
transferor and the respondent no.1 was the confirming party to the same and the
same have even been registered. The complainant had paid substantial amounts
to the account of respondent no.2 towards part consideration for the remaining 4
flats being flat nos.802, 803, 804 and 808. The complainant has already paid the
applicable stamp duty and registration charges and also obtained appointment
for registration as per the convenience of respondents for the deeds of transfer
dated 24-12-2021 for the said 4 flats. The respondents informed the complainant
and her family to be present for registration of all four deeds on 24-12-2021
however, the authorized representative of respondents did not turn up for
registration and the registration formalities from complainant’s side was
completed on 24.12.2021. Notably, it was one-sided registration of the aforesaid


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

4 deeds of transfers been done by complainant and registration formalities of
both the respondents is due which is mentioned in the below table:
Sr. no.
Flat details
Agreement value
Amount paid
1
802, 97.51 sq. m
Rs. 1,72,25,000/-
Rs. 90,00,000/-
2
803, 65.56 sq. m
Rs. 1,14,15,000/-
Rs. 55,24,263/-
3
804, 74.87 sq. m
Rs. 1,29,61,000/-
Rs. 60,00,000/-
4
808, 65.15 sq. m
Rs. 1,13,14,000/-
Rs. 56,29,398/-

Thereafter, on 12-04-2022, a notice was served to respondents to depute the
personnel to complete the registration however, the respondents failed and / or
neglected to reply to the said notice. Since the one-sided registration formalities
were completed by the complainant, the Sub-Registrar, Borivali, issued summons
dated 17-05-2022 to respondents to appear for registration. Since the respondents
have delayed by more than 4 month to appear before the registration department,
penalty was required to be paid by the respondents, which the respondents refused
to pay and thus avoided to complete the formalities.

6. The respondent no. 1 viz. M/s. Adarsh Industrial Estate Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘respondent’ for the sake of brevity) has uploaded its written
submission on record of MahaRERA on 06-08-2024, by raising the preliminary issue
of maintainability of this complaint. It has denied each and every averment of the
complainant. It has stated that it is a Special-Purpose Vehicle (“SPV”), incorporated
and promoted by the Ahuja Hive Private Limited now known as Hive Carbon-Zero
Developers Private Limited (“HCZ”) for the development of Prasadam Project
(captioned project). Moreover, the HCZ was incorporated and promoted by Mr.
Jagdish Ahuja and Mr. Gautam Ahuja (together, the “Ahujas”) in the year 2019, in
which Agape Team Holdings (HK) Limited (“Agape”), through various deeds and
documents, has invested, based on the representations made by the said Ahujas.
Further, the said Ahujas entered into various agreements with prospective


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

purchasers in respect of units in “Prasadam Project” whereby the name of the
respondent SPV was shown as the Developer. Furthermore, Mr. Gautam Ahuja was
the CEO of the HCZ till January 2022 and was at the helm of all affairs in relation
to the respondent including to carry out the construction in the project. Further, the
said respondent (Agape) discovered that the said Ahujas have played fraud in
respect of the SPVs, and the projects promoted by them. By the time the Ahuja’s’
fraud was discovered in relation to projects, their other fraudulent acts of cheating
other investors had also come to light. Presently Mr. Jagdish Ahuja is in jail, and
Mr. Gautam Ahuja is absconding, till date. In these circumstances, the Ahuja’s have
abandoned the joint venture with Agape, and therefore, have abandoned the Link
Park Project. Furthermore, the respondent stated that, due to the advent of the
Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 continuing into 2021, there was a complete
lockdown implemented across India and as a result, the construction activities of
the said project came to a screeching halt, just like all real estate projects across the
country. In light of these unforeseeable circumstances, MahaRERA passed order
nos. 14/2020 and 21/2021 invoking Force Majeure for Covid-19 pandemic which
specifically stated that the projects having a completion date during the Force
Majeure, shall be granted an automatic extension of 1 year. The respondent stated
that the said project is a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) related project. It has
been subject to various civil litigations pending before various forums before SRA
itself and other civil authorities/courts that has also caused an imperative delay in
completion of the project. Agape has till date invested an amount of Rs.
1273,48,00,000/- in HCZ (the holding company of the respondent) through
subscription to compulsory convertible preference shares (CCPS), compulsory
convertible debentures (CCDs) and non-convertible debentures (NCDs), from time
to time. Due to acts of the Ahuja’s, the entire investment made by Agape has been
eroded, the criminal actions of the Ahuja have caused serious and substantial loss
and economic deprivation to the Investor – Agape. Agape is trying to get potential
partners/investors who can take their position in the respondent-company and


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

complete the said project and thereby fulfil its obligations to the homebuyers and
various other stakeholders. In view of the effects of such a pandemic beyond the
period of 1 year mentioned hereinabove, the date of completion of the project on
the RERA web portal, was revised to 19-10-2026. The respondent stated that the
complainant has filed one complaint having multiple deeds of transfer for which
she is seeking prayers against 4 units. Hence, this complaint deserved to be
dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability. The respondent relied on
complaint
no. CC006000000395828
, wherein this Hon’ble Authority itself has directions given
to file individual complaints for each unit in Bhavesh Natwarlal Ganatra v. Adarsh
Industrial Estate Pvt. Ltd. filed against the same project. Further, the complainant
herself has mentioned and admitted in her complaint and has produced the
relevant portions from her bank’s statement of accounts that she has paid the
amounts to one – Jeebee Properties Pvt. Ltd. the respondent no. 2 herein. Therefore,
no monies have been paid by the complainant to the promoter-respondent no. 01.
Furthermore, one flat no. 803 claimed by the complainant is the subject matter of
civil court and there being restraining order to the respondent from creating any
third party right in the said unit. As such the alleged claim of the complainant as
regards this unit is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum, being beyond
jurisdiction of this Forum and also being civil in nature. Hence, the present
complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

7. The complainant has uploaded her rejoinder on record of MahaRERA on
23-09-2024. She stated that, mere change in the management of the respondent
cannot dissolve the respondents of their liabilities and consequently the
respondents would be under obligation to abide by the transfer deed as well as
MOU executed by them. Further, the complainant has stated that there is no
delay in filing the present complaint. As per the allotment letter dated 16-01-2018,
the respondent has allotted flat nos. 802, 803, 804 and 808 to respondent no. 2
against the consideration of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- The said allotment letter required


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

that respondent to handover possession to respondent no. 2 or its transferee. In
view of the such circumstances the transfer deed came to be executed between
the complainant and the respondents however, the formality of registration
remained. The respondent no. 1 has acted as a confirming party to the transfer
deed therefore is liable to comply with the obligations under the said agreement.
The respondents have executed separate MOU dated 03-11-2021 supplementing
the transfer deeds whereunder the respondents have specifically agreed to
deliver the possession of flats till the end of December 2023 and on failure thereof
the complainant would not be required to pay the balance amount under the
transfer deeds hence the respondent denied the contention that completion date
was 20-10-2025. There is no provision with regard to filing of separate complaint
of each unit. With regard to flat no. 803, the respondent stated that the subject
matter is of a civil court however the respondent neither placed on record the
order restraining them from creating 3rd party nor provided any details of the
said case. Hence the present case is maintainable.

8. The MahaRERA has examined the rival submissions made by both the parties
and also perused the available record. The complainant claiming to be an allottee
of the said project registered by the respondent (Adarsh Industrial Estate Pvt.
Ltd), by filing this complaint under section 31 of the RERA, has approached the
MahaRERA mainly seeking reliefs following reliefs:-

“a) respondents be directed to jointly and severally make the payment of any
charges including penalty that may be applicable for registration of the 4
Transfer Deeds dated 24/12/2021 for flat nos. 802, 803, 804 & 808,
b) restrained respondents from creating any third-party right, title or
interest in the flats allotted to the complainant.
c) In the alternative to prayer clause (a), respondents be directed to jointly
and severally execute and register, after paying any stamp duty that may be


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

payable, Confirmation Deeds reiterating and confirming the execution of 4
Transfer Deeds dated 24/12/2021 for flat,
d) compensation”.

9. Meaning thereby that the complainant by filing this complaint is mainly
seeking substantive reliefs under section 13 of the RERA for execution of the
registered agreements for sale/ transfer deed with respect to 4 flats being nos.
802,803, 804 and 808. The complainant has agitated the said reliefs by virtue
of an MoU dated 3-11-2021 and the transfer deed dated 24-12-2012
(unregistered) duly signed and executed between the complainant, the
respondent no. 2 and the respondent (as a confirming party).

10. The respondent promoter which has registered the said project has assailed
the aforesaid claims of the complainant by raising a preliminary issue of
maintainability of this complaint on two grounds such as i) in respect of a flat
bearing no. 803, (which is the subject matter of this complaint), there is
already a Suit pending before the Hon’ble Civil Court and ii) the complainant
has filed this single complaint seeking reliefs for four different flats. On both
these grounds, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of this complaint. In
addition to that, the respondent has also contended that the complainant has
not paid any money to it. However, the same is paid to the respondent no. 2.

11. Be that as it may, in the present case, the record shows that during the course
of hearings held in this complaint on 21-11-2022 and 14-02-2024, the
MahaRERA has directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect
to the said four flats till final disposal of this complaint.

12. However, in this case, since the respondent has raised the issue of
maintainability of this complaint, the MahaRERA has to decide the same


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 9 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

being a preliminary issue before dealing with this complaint on merits.

13. Both the parties were directed to file their respective written submissions on
record of MahaRERA on the said issue of maintainability of this complaint.
However, neither the complainant nor the respondent has uploaded any
further submissions on the said maintainability issue as raised by the
respondent, despite direction.

14. However, as far as the issue raised by the respondent at point no. (i) is
concerned, the MahaRERA has noticed that the respondent although has
claimed that the flat no. 803, which is subject matter of this complaint is also
a subject matter of the pending suit, it has failed to submit any supportive
document on record of MahaRERA to establish the said fact. Hence, in
absence of any cogent documentary proof submitted by the respondent, with
regard to the parallel proceeding for flat no. 803, the MahaRERA is not
inclined to accept the said contention of the respondent at point no. (i) above
for dismissal of this complaint.

15. As far as the other issue raised by the respondent at point no. (ii) above that
one complaint is filed for four separate flats, the MahaRERA is of the view
that the said fact has not been denied by the complainant. Moreso, it is part
of the record that the complainant by filing this complaint is seeking reliefs in
respect of 4 flats.

16. Admittedly, as per the MahaRERA Order No. 11 of 2019 dated 23-10-2019, the
allottee needs to file separate complaint for separate allotments (in this case
flats). However, this complaint is not filed as per the said MahaRERA order.

17. However, the said issue raised by the respondent is merely technical in nature
and also the same was raised by the respondent at a belated stage by filing its
written submissions on record of MahaRERA on 6-08-2024, when this


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 10 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

complaint was heard by the MahaRERA on various occasions and also the
interim reliefs as stated above was already granted to the complainant herein.
Moreover, it is a well settled law that mere technicalities should not come in
the way of justice. Moreso, the MahaRERA can always direct the complainant
to restrict this complaint in respect of any single flat and to file separate
complaints for remaining flats. However, no such directions seem to be issued
in this case. Needless to state here that the respondent although has appeared
for the hearings held on 21-11-2022 and 14-02-2024 it has not raised such issue
and objected to the interim reliefs granted to the complainant.

18. In view of these observations, the MahaRERA does not find any merits in the
said issue of maintainability of this complaint raised by the respondent on
the aforesaid two grounds.

19. Hence, the following

INTERIM ORDER

is passed:-
a) The maintainability issue raised by the respondent vide its written
submissions filed on record of MahaRERA 6-08-2024 stands rejected.
b) The complainant is directed to file an application on record of MahaRERA
stating as to which flat this complaint is restricted to within a period of
15 days from the date of this

INTERIM ORDER

. The interim relief granted by
the MahaRERA shall remain in force till final disposal of this complaint.
c) The complainant may file 3 separate complaints before the MahaRERA in
respect of the remaining 3 flats, if she so desires.
d) The seniority of the said complaints (which would be filed by the
complainant) would be considered as the date of filing of this complaint
i.e. 3-10-2022. Needless to state here that the said complaints would be
decided by the MahaRERA on its own merits.
e) The respondent is directed to file its reply to the complaint within a
further period of 15 days from the date when the complainant uploads an


Complaint No. CC006000000302912


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 11 of 11
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

application as directed above at para-no. (b) and also before the next date
of hearing.
f) List this complaint for next hearing on 15-04-2025.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA