Complaint No. CC006000000193381
and 3 Other Complaints

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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC006000000193381

Salim Abdullah Patel and Saumiya Salim Patel

... Complainants

Versus

Sankalp Siddhi Developers Pvt Ltd


... Respondent
Along with

2. Complaint No. CC006000000397787

Sunderdas Dilip Kumar and
Abhishek Dilipkumar Mahbubani


... Complainants

Versus

1. M/s. Sankalp Siddhi Developers Pvt Ltd

2. Sahyog Homes Limited


... Respondents
Along with

3. Complaint No. CC006000000398027

Nandini Tripathi


... Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Sankalp Siddhi Developers Pvt Ltd

2. Sahyog Homes Limited


... Respondents
Along with

4. Complaint No. CC006000000398029

Nandita Tripathi


... Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Sankalp Siddhi Developers Pvt Ltd

2. Sahyog Homes Limited


... Respondents
MahaRERA Project Registration Number - P51800007725

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

None appeared for the complainant at Sr. No. 1.
Ld. Adv. Shalu Pathak a/w. Ld. Adv. Godfrey Pimenta appeared for the


Complaint No. CC006000000193381
and 3 Other Complaints

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

complainant at Sr. No. 2.
Ld. Adv. J. K. Shah appeared for the complainants at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4.
None appeared for the respondent – promoter.


INTERIM ORDER


(Wednesday, 05th June 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainants above named have filed these 4 separate online complaints
before the MahaRERA mainly seeking various reliefs from the MahaRERA under
the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of their respective
flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “Lamor” bearing
MahaRERA registration no. P51800007725 is located at Oshiwara, Mumbai.

2. These complaints were heard today by the MahaRERA as per the Standard
Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by the MahaRERA for hearing
complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued prior
intimation of this hearing. Accordingly, the complainants appeared and made
their respective submissions. However, despite notice, the respondent remained
absent.

3. During the course of hearing, the MahaRERA has noticed that the Hon’ble
National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order dated 23-
02-2024 in CP (IB) No. 807/MB/2023 filed by M/s. Lekha Enterprises Pvt Ltd, i.e.,
the Financial Creditor therein against the respondent herein, thereby admitting
the respondent herein into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in
accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016..


Complaint No. CC006000000193381
and 3 Other Complaints

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

The complainants herein were informed about the said order passed by the
NCLT during the course of hearing.

4. However, in view of the above, 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
herein) in respect of which an order of admission into CIRP has been passed by
the Adjudicating Authority, applies to the respondent herein. Hence institution
of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the respondent
including execution of any

JUDGMENT

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

5. In view of the above, the MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide these complaints
against the respondent 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.

6. However, liberty is granted to the complainants to approach MahaRERA after
final disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the respondent
if need be.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA