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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC006000000396465

Megha Sajit Kumar,Sajit Kumar


... Complainants

Versus

Karrm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,Ketan Babulal Patel,Namdeo B Subhash
Jadhav,Satish Gangadharrao Pillangad,Ramakant Subhash Jadhav,Motilal Oswal
Home Finance Pvt. Ltd.


... Respondent
Along with

2. Complaint No. CC006000000479829

Sumeet Harold Nigli


... Complainant

Versus

Karrm Infrastructure Pvt Ltd


... Respondent
Along with

3. Complaint No. CC006000000480383

Thomas Joseph Chiriyankandath


... Complainant

Versus

Karrm Infrastructure Pvt Ltd


... Respondent

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700007680


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

The complainants appeared in person.
None appeared for the respondent.


INTERIM ORDER


(Wednesday, 01st January 2025)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainants above named have filed these complaints before the MahaRERA
seeking directions from MahaRERA, to the respondent to refund the entire

Complaint No. CC006000000396465
and 2 Others

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

amount paid by them along with interest as prescribed 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 “Karrm Panchtatva - 3” bearing MahaRERA
registration no. P51700007680, located at Kasagaon, Dist. Thane..

2. These complaints were heard by the MahaRERA today 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, the complainants appeared and made their
submissions. However, despite the notice of hearing, the respondent promoter
remained absent.

3. However, in the present case on bare perusal of the website of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India, the MahaRERA has prima facie noticed that the M/s.
VSJ Investment Pvt Ltd has filed Company Petition No. CP (IB) No.651/MB/2023
against the respondent promoter under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016 agitating
claim of Rs.290,84,45,956.84/- against the respondent promoter.

4. From the available record, the MahaRERA has further noticed that on 29-02- 2024,
the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an
order in CP (IB) No. CP (IB) No.651/MB/2023 filed by M/s. VSJ Investment 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. 5.
Further, as recorded in para (d) of the said order passed by the NCLT moratorium

Complaint No. CC006000000396465
and 2 Others

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

has already been ordered against the respondent promoter. In view thereof, 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.

6. However, although the complainants appeared for the hearing today, they have
informed the MahaRERA that they are not aware of such NCLT proceeding filed
against the respondent promoter.

7. However, the said crucial fact about the appointment of CIRP in respect of the
respondent’s company cannot be ignored by the MahaRERA.

8. Be that as it may, in the present case, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the
NCLT, 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 for refund before the
CIRP if they so desire.

9. 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

Complaint No. CC006000000396465
and 2 Others