━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hearing held through hybrid mode


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000408123

BLESSING INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP
…COMPLAINANT

VS

SSSC ESCATICS PRIVATE LTD,
WADHWA GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

…RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800011373


INTERIM ORDER


June 18th, 2026
(Date of hearing – 20.05.2026 matters were reserved for

INTERIM ORDER

)

Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Vikramjit Garewal appeared for the complainants
The respondent no 1 remained absent.
Advocate Abir Patel appeared for the respondent No. 2.
Advocate Rubin Vakil appeared for the proposed respondent no. 3

1. The complainants are homebuyers and allottees within the meaning of section 2
(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the “said Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter
referred to as the “RERA”) and the respondent is the promoter within the
meaning of section 2 (zk) of the said Act who has registered the project namely
“NEST WING B” under section 5 of the said Act bearing
MahaRERA Project
Registration No. P51800011373
(hereinafter referred to as the “said project”).

2. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage, the proposed date of
completion is mentioned as 31.03.2020, revised proposed date of completion is

30. 06.2021. The said project is lapsed, and the respondent has not applied for any
further extension.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs:
a.
The Complainant seeks leave of this Hon'ble Authority to amend the present
Complaint by impleading M86 Residency Private Limited as Respondent No.3,
being the entity subsequently appointed as the developer/co-developer of the
project.
b.
The Complainant further seeks permission to incorporate subsequent facts and
events that have transpired during the pendency of the Complaint, including the
termination of the appointment of Respondent No.1 under Section 13(2) of the
Slum Act, the proceedings conducted under the Amnesty Scheme, the
appointment of ACRE and M86 Residency Private Limited as developers of the
project, and the consequential proceedings before the concerned authorities.
c.
The Complainant also seeks to place on record averments regarding the role and
conduct of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the proposed Respondent No.3 in relation
to the change in development rights and appointment of the new developer,
which according to the Complainant are necessary for the complete and effective
adjudication of the present dispute.
d.
Any other relief reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

4. The captioned amendment application was heard on 20.05.2026, wherein the
following roznama was recorded by the Authority:
The complainant has filed an amendment application. Heard all parties on the said
application. Parties are at liberty to file written notes of arguments on or before

28. 05.2026. The amendment application is reserved for order from 29.05.2026.The
matter is adjourned to 10.06.2026.

5. The brief submissions of the complainant are as follows:
A.
The complainant submits that during the pendency of the present
complaint, it learnt that the appointment of the existing developer had
allegedly been terminated under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. It is
submitted that despite repeated requests and correspondence seeking
details of the said termination proceedings and the identity of the newly
appointed developer, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to disclose the
relevant information and documents.
B.
The complainant further submits that upon obtaining copies of documents
and participating in related proceedings, it became aware that M86
Residency Private Limited had been appointed as a developer/co-

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

developer of the project pursuant to the Amnesty Scheme applicable to
stalled slum rehabilitation projects. It is contended that the proceedings
before the competent authorities, including the orders pertaining to the
appointment of the new developer, constitute subsequent developments
having a direct impact on the rights and obligations arising in the present
complaint.
C.
The complainant further contends that the appointment of the proposed
Respondent No.3 was facilitated through ACRE and that the said entity is
closely associated with Respondent No.2. According to the complainant,
the change in development rights and appointment of the new developer
have been effected in a manner prejudicial to the interests of flat
purchasers. It is further contended that notwithstanding such appointment,
Respondent No.2 continues to remain liable towards the allottees for
compliance with its statutory and contractual obligations. In view of the
aforesaid subsequent events, the complainant submits that M86 Residency
Private Limited is a necessary and proper party to the present proceedings.

6. The brief submissions of the respondent No. 2 are as follows:
A.
Respondent No.2 submits that the proposed Respondent No.3 is a separate
and distinct legal entity and that the allegations seeking to connect
Respondent No.2 with the proposed Respondent No.3 are misconceived. It
is further submitted that Respondent No.2 had informed the complainant
during the hearing held on 17.07.2025 regarding the termination of
Respondent No.1 as developer of the project and that the order passed by
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was available in the public domain.
According to Respondent No.2, the complainant cannot attribute its alleged
lack of knowledge regarding the said developments to any omission on the
part of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 further denies the allegations
that it instigated or influenced the proceedings resulting in the removal of
Respondent No.1 and contends that the said action was taken by the

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

competent authorities on account of the defaults committed by Respondent
No.1.
B.
Respondent No.2 submits that the subject flats were allotted by Respondent
No.1 to the complainant pursuant to a settlement arrangement between
them and that Respondent No.2 was neither a party to the said
arrangement nor a recipient of any consideration thereunder. It is therefore
contended that any claim arising in respect of the subject flats lies against
Respondent No.1 alone and not against Respondent No.2.
C.
Respondent No.2 contends that the proposed amendments seek to
introduce allegations of fraud, collusion and conspiracy against
Respondent No.2, which are false, baseless and unsupported by any
material on record. It is submitted that the amendments substantially alter
the scope and character of the original complaint and seek to introduce new
causes of action through the amendment proceedings.

7. The brief submissions of the respondent No. 3 are as follows:
A.
The proposed Respondent No.3 submits that it has been appointed as the
developer of the project pursuant to the decision of the Government of
Maharashtra dated 25.09.2024 issued under the Amnesty Scheme and the
consequential order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. It is further
submitted that the slum societies have also appointed the proposed
Respondent No.3 as the new developer of the scheme. According to the
proposed Respondent No.3, its appointment is by operation of law and not
by way of transfer from the erstwhile promoters under Section 15 of the Act
and, therefore, there is no question of it assuming the liabilities of the
existing respondents. Reliance is also placed on various decisions of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court to contend that an incoming developer
appointed upon removal of an earlier developer cannot be saddled with
the liabilities of the erstwhile developer.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

B.
The proposed Respondent No.3 further submits that the complainant had
knowledge of the removal of the existing developers at least from

17. 07.2025 and had thereafter filed an earlier amendment application
without seeking its impleadment. It is contended that the present
amendment application has been filed belatedly and is an afterthought. The
proposed Respondent No.3 further submits that there is no privity of
contract between it and the complainant, as all transactions were
admittedly undertaken with Respondent No.1. According to the proposed
Respondent No.3, it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present
complaint and the complainant cannot seek any monetary or other reliefs
against it. It is also submitted that the proposed Respondent No.3 has
already obtained a separate MahaRERA registration pursuant to the orders
passed by the Authority and the complainant is not an allottee in the said
project.
C.
The proposed Respondent No.3 further contends that the amendment
application is deficient inasmuch as neither the prayer clause nor the
Schedule of Amendments contains any specific prayer or proposed
amendment seeking its impleadment as a party respondent. It is submitted
that the allegations levelled against the proposed Respondent No.3 are
contrary to the record and that no prejudice would be caused to the
complainant, whose claims, if any, lie only against the erstwhile promoter
and are adequately protected. The proposed Respondent No.3 has
therefore opposed the amendment application and prayed for dismissal of
the same with costs.

8. From the facts and submissions made by the parties, the issue that needs to be
answered is
Whether the complainants are entitled to the amendments sought in the amendment
application?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

9. Before answering the issue framed herein above the following observations are
noteworthy:
A.
It is noted that the complainant seeks impleadment of M86 Residency
Private Limited as proposed Respondent No.3 on the ground that it has
been appointed as the new developer of the project pursuant to the orders
passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. However, the material placed
on record indicates that the appointment of M86 Residency Private Limited
is a consequence of statutory proceedings undertaken by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority and not a transfer of the project by the existing
respondents. The rights and claims asserted by the complainant in the
present complaint arise from transactions allegedly entered into with the
existing respondents prior to such appointment.
B.
It is further noted that the present complaint arises out of transactions
entered into between the complainant and the existing respondents prior
to the appointment of M86 Residency Private Limited as the incoming
developer. In Regulatory Case No. 438 of 2025 concerning the same project,
the Authority, vide order dated 02.02.2026, observed that the appointment
of M86 Residency Private Limited was not a transfer under Section 15 of
the Act but a consequence of the statutory action undertaken by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority. The Authority further observed that the rights
and claims of existing allottees continue to arise from their transactions
with the original promoter and that the obligations towards such allottees
remain enforceable against the outgoing promoter, who was directed to
fulfil its obligations under law.
C.
In view thereof, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the
presence of M86 Residency Private Limited is not necessary for
adjudication of the disputes arising from the transactions between the
complainant and the existing respondents. The rights and liabilities arising
from such transactions can be effectively adjudicated in the absence of the
proposed Respondent No.3. The prayer seeking impleadment of M86
Residency Private Limited therefore does not merit acceptance.

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

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is observed that the dispute involved in the
present complaint can be effectively adjudicated on the basis of the existing
pleadings and the material already available on record. The complainant has failed
to establish that the proposed amendments are necessary for determining the real
controversy between the parties or that the presence of M86 Residency Private
Limited is required for effective adjudication of the complaint. Accordingly, no case
is made out for grant of the reliefs sought in the amendment application. Thus,
based on the observations made herein above the issue at paragraph no. 8 is
answered in the negative.

11. Therefore, after considering the aforementioned observations and provisions of the
Act, the materials placed on record, the facts of the case and submissions made by
the parties, the Authority passes the following

INTERIM ORDER

:
A.
The captioned amendment application is dismissed for the reasons more
specifically mentioned hereinabove.
B.
The captioned complaints are adjourned for hearing on 08.07.2026 wherein
all parties are directed to remain present.


Manoj Saunik

Chairperson, MahaRERA
MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed by
MANOJ SAUNIK
Date: 2026.06.18
09:14:50 +05'30'