━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hybrid Hearing held as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO. CC12601532

TROIKA ESTATE PRIVATE LTD


…COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. RAVEENA MANGALDAS MHASKE

2. SANJAY RAJARAM BHARVE


…RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700030210


INTERIM ORDER


On the application of the Complainant

07. 08.2026
(Date of Hearing: 07.08.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member II,

MahaRERA
Adv. Suyoga Rajguru a/w Adv. Kiran Tiwari for Complainant
Adv. Medha Rane a/w. Adv. Pranay Juvekar for Proposed Respondent

1. The Complainant has filed the present amendment application on
the MahaRERA website dated 03.08.2026, inter alia seeking leave to
implead Truhome Finance Limited (formerly Shriram Housing
Finance Limited) as Respondent No. 3; to take on record
subsequent events including the proceeding initiated under the
SARFAESI Act and the order passed under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act and the notice issued by the Court Commissioner in
relation to the subject flat; to permit the Complainant to amend the

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

complaint and to place on record all documents concerning the said
subsequent events; to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and the
proposed Respondent No. 3 from in any manner auctioning,
alienating, selling, transferring, encumbering or creating any third
party rights in respect of flat No. B-1104, Wing B, 11th floor,
“Crosstown” at One Kalyan (“said flat”), in the project namely
“CROSSTOWN” registered under
MahaRERA Project Registration
No. P51700030210
(hereinafter referred to as the “said project”)
pending the final disposal of the main complaint and/or until
further orders; to restrain Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and the proposed
Respondent from creating third party rights in respect of the said
flat and from taking any further step that would alter, the present
status of the said flat save and except with prior permission of this
Authority or in the alternative to direct that any proposed action
concerning the said flat by any secured creditor, Court
Commissioner or any person acting through Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 shall be subject to further orders of this Authority.

2. In short facts of the application are as follows:
A. The Respondents, Mrs. Raveena Mangaldas Mhaske and Mr.
Sanjay Rajaram Bhavre, are allottees of the said flat, under a
registered Agreement for Sale dated 31.03.2022 bearing
Registration No. UHN1/1487/2022 executed before the Sub-
Registrar of Assurances, Kalyan, (hereinafter referred to as the
“said Agreement”) for a total consideration of Rs. 45,01,247/-
payable in installments as per the terms agreed therein.
B. The Complainant has already instituted the above complaint
before this Authority, inter-alia, seeking recovery of the

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

outstanding balance consideration, applicable interest,
maintenance charges, and termination of the said Agreement
on account of persistent and deliberate defaults by the
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under the said Agreement.
C. The Complainant obtained the Full Occupation Certificate for
the project on 09.06.2025 from the Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation well before the stipulated completion date of

31. 07.2025 and uploaded the same on the MahaRERA
portal. Immediately thereafter, the Complainant called upon
all allottees, including the Respondents, to clear their
outstanding dues and take physical possession of their
respective flats. Despite repeated demand letters and
reminders, the Respondents have utterly failed and neglected
to pay the balance consideration and applicable interest, have
not responded to any of these communications, have not paid
the agreed maintenance charges, and have not taken physical
possession of the flat.
D. The Complainant has recently come to know that Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 had availed finance from Truhome Finance
Limited in relation to the said flat and that the said finance
entity has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) against
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the said flat.
E. As per documents and notices presently available, a demand
notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was followed
by measures under Section 13(4), and thereafter proceedings

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated before
the competent court at Thane for taking physical possession
through a Court Commissioner.
F. The Complainant is informed that by order dated 22.05.2026
passed in Cri. M.A. No. 853/2026, the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, appointed a Court
Commissioner for taking physical possession of the subject
flat, and a subsequent notice dated 16.07.2026 has indicated
proposed action for taking possession.
G. The subject flat forms the very substratum of the present
complaint before this Hon’ble Authority. If coercive steps are
taken resulting in change of possession and/or creation of
third-party rights pending adjudication of the present
complaint, the Complainant’s substantive rights and the
efficacy of the pending proceedings would be seriously
prejudiced.
H. Clause 5 of the Agreement for Sale records the consequences
of allottee default, including the promoter’s rights in the event
of persistent payment default after due notice. Clause 5.2 also
contemplates the situation where the allottee has availed
housing finance and provides the contractual mechanism
governing the consequences of lawful termination and
refund.
I. Section 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) empowers
this Authority to pass interim orders restraining any allottee

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

from committing acts in contravention of the said Act pending
disposal of a complaint, and Section 37 & 38 confers wide
general powers to issue all directions necessary to give effect
to the provisions of the said Act.
J. Truhome Finance Limited is a necessary and proper party for
the limited purpose of enabling this Authority to pass
effective protective directions in respect of the said flat, since
the said finance entity has initiated coercive proceedings
affecting the very flat which forms the subject matter of the
pending complaint.
K. The interim relief sought herein is purely protective in nature
and is intended to preserve the subject matter of the
complaint. The Complainant is not, by this Interim
Application alone, seeking final adjudication of all rights inter
se the parties.
L. In order to avoid multiplicity, inconsistency and irreversible
prejudice, this Hon’ble Authority may direct the parties to
maintain status quo in respect of possession, alienation,
transfer, auction, encumbrance and third-party rights
concerning the said flat for a limited period and/or until
hearing of this Interim Application.

3. Pursuant to filing the said Urgent Hearing Application, the
Complainant moved a praecipe before this Authority on 06.08.2026
seeking reliefs in terms of the said Urgent Hearing Application.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Upon hearing both the parties i.e. the Complainant and the
Proposed Respondent No. 3, this Authority was pleased to schedule
the matter for hearing today i.e. on 07.08.2026 as a result of seeing
the urgency in the matter and directed the Proposed Respondent
No. 3 to file its reply to the said Application and to file Vakalatnama
for the Proposed Respondent No. 3 (proposed Respondent).

4. In pursuance of the said, the proposed Respondent tendered its
reply before this Authority when the matter was called out objecting
the reliefs claimed by the Complainant. The brief facts of the reply
of the proposed Respondent are as follows :-
A. The Interim Application filed by the Complainant and reliefs
prayed therein are not maintainable and entertainable by this
Authority and this Authority lacks the jurisdiction to grant the
reliefs as prayed by the Complainant.
B. As per section 36, 37 or 38 of the said Act, this Authority has
limited powers to grant interim orders that too only against
any promoter, allottee or real estate agent and admittedly the
proposed Respondent is not falling within any of these
definition in relation to the said project and therefore, this
Authority cannot pass any

INTERIM ORDER

against the proposed
Respondent.
C. The proposed Respondent has proceeded under the
SARFAESI Act strictly in exercise of its statutory rights as a
secured creditor, upon occurrence of the requisite default
committed by the Borrowers and in accordance with the
SARFAESI Act and rules framed thereunder. Admittedly, the
said
proceedings
are
proceedings
arising
from
the

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

enforcement of the security interest of the proposed
Respondent and are independent of the contractual
relationship between the Complainant and the promoter /
allottee.
D. The statutory remedy is provided under the SARFAESI Act to
the aggrieved person to impugn the measures initiated by the
secured creditor by resorting to provision contained in Section
17 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the present
Application is not maintainable and entertainable in view of
availability of statutory and efficacious remedy available
under the law.
E. From perusal of the pleadings particularly in Para No. 4 of the
I.A., the Complainant is feigning complete knowledge about
the rights of the present proposed Respondent contrary to
their own act of issuing No Objection certificate to the
proposed Respondent for creation of mortgage upon the
subject property. the Complainant has also suppressed the
material fact that, the loan amount was disbursed in favour of
the Complainant in view of No Objection given by the
Complainant.
F. Before sanction and disbursement of the loan facility, the
proposed Respondent sought permission for creation of
mortgage in respect of the said flat from the Complainant
which was granted vide letter dated 20.04.2022.
G. By the said letter dated 20.04.2022, the Complainant
acknowledged that, the said flat will be security for the loan
obtained by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and on that basis,

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the Complainant has granted their express No Objection for
mortgaging the said said flat as security for repayment of loan
facility obtained by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. the
Complainant noted the charge of the proposed Respondent
No. 3 in their books. Now contrary to the said No Objection,
the Complainant is seeking reliefs which are prejudicial or
contrary to the rights of the proposed Respondent.
H. The proposed Respondent is enforcing their rights as a
mortgagee and proceedings to take possession of the said flat
by following due procedure of law and particularly by taking
administrative assistance of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate
of Thane and there is no perversity or illegality in the said
process and now, the Complainant cannot interdict the said
process by taking contrary stand to their own no objection.
I. As regards impleadment of the proposed Respondent is
concerned, the Complainant legally cannot seek such type of
reliefs as the proposed Respondent is neither promoter,
allotee or real estate agent and under the garb of impleading
the proposed Respondent, the Complainant cannot legally be
allowed to interdict the lawful process initiated by the
proposed Respondent.

5. The present Application was listed on 07.08.2026, wherein,
following Roznama was recorded :-
“Advocate Suyoga Rajguru alongwith Adv. Kiran Tiwari present for
Complainant. Adv. Medha Rane alongwith Adv. Pravin Juvekar present
for Proposed Respondent.
Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 and

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 9 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2 are allottees. An Agreement for Sale was executed in the year 2022
between the parties, i.e., the Complainant and the Respondents. As the
allottees defaulted in payment, the Complainant filed complaint for
cancellation of the agreement. The Complainant came to know that
SARFAESI action has been taken by Truehome Finance Limited, and today
physical possession is going to be taken by Truehome Finance Limited.
Therefore, the Complainant approached this Authority for urgent relief and
requested to restrain Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and proposed Respondent No.
3, their agents, and all persons claiming through or under them, pending
the hearing and final disposal of the present interim application and/or
until further orders, from creating third-party rights in respect of the
subject flat and from taking any further action that would alter the present
status of the subject flat. In the alternative, direct that any proposed action
concerning the subject flat by any secured creditor, Court Commissioner,
or any person acting through Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall be subject to
further orders of this Authority after hearing the parties. The matter is sub
judice before the Authority; therefore, the Complainant’s rights are
required to be protected. The Complainant obtained full OC on 09.06.2025.
The possession of the flat is with the Complainant, i.e., the Promoter. The
impleadment of proposed Respondent No. 3 is not sought to fasten liability
on the bank as a promoter. It is sought because of the bank's own coercive
action, which directly affects the subject matter pending before this
Authority. It was submitted by the proposed Respondent that the aggrieved
borrower can approach the DRT. In reply to this, the Complainant replied
that the Complainant is neither a borrower, guarantor, nor mortgagor.
NOC was given by the Promoter, however, the same does not waive the
Promoter's rights in respect of the said flat, as the contractual liabilities of

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 10 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the Promoter are between Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the Promoter.
Advocate for the Proposed Respondent submitted that Proposed
Respondent No. 3 is a secured creditor. As per Sections 36, 37, and 38 of
the RERA Act, the Authority has the power to grant interim orders only
against any promoter, allottee, or real estate agent, and proposed
Respondent No. 3 is neither a promoter, nor an allottee, nor a real estate
agent. Proposed Respondent No. 3 sought permission to create a mortgage
in respect of the flat in question from the Complainant vide letter dated

20. 04.2022. The Hon'ble CMM, Thane, passed an order under Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act on 22.05.2026 for taking physical possession of the
secured asset. If the Promoter/Complainant is aggrieved by the measures
taken by the secured creditor, the Promoter has a specific statutory remedy
available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, Mumbai
and submitted that the application is not maintainable, and the same may
be rejected. Reliance was placed on the

JUDGMENT

of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union Bank of India Vs. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory
Authority and Ors., reported in SCC 2022.
Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the said authority is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
The order on the application will be passed today i.e. on 07.08.2026.
The seniority for the main complaint remains the same. The matter will
be listed as per seniority. ”

6. As directed by this Authority, the parties have filed written
arguments. The brief arguments of the Complainant which are
not repeated hereinbefore are as follows:
a. The present Interim Application is necessitated by
subsequent events namely the initiation of SARFAESI

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 11 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

proceedings by the proposed Respondent culminating in
an order dated 22.05.2026 under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act and a scheduled possession through the
Court Commissioner.
b. The core issue is not whether SARFAESI proceedings can
be initiated by the lender against the borrower. The issue
is whether the said flat which is the subject matter of the
present complaint can be allowed to be taken over and
altered irreversibly before the Authority decides the
pending dispute.
c. Clause 5.1 of the said Agreement provides that in the event
of default in payment of installments, Promoter may after
notice treat the said Agreement as voidable and forfeit 10%
of the total purchase price together with interest and other
dues.
d. Clause 5.2 expressly contemplates the situation where the
purchaser has obtained housing finance and provides that
if refund becomes payable, the amount shall be paid
directly to the lender from whom the finance was obtained
and only the balance, if any shall be paid to the purchaser.
e. Clause 5.3 records that upon valid termination, the
purchasers shall have no right, title, interest, share, claim
or demand in the premises subject to the stipulated notice
and cure mechanism.
f. The Complainant is not asking this Authority to decide
Bank’s lending claim or to nullify its security interest and
is only asking that the said flat not be alienated or taken

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 12 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

into possession before the pending complaint is heard.
g. The fact that the SARFAESI Act provides remedy under
Section 17 to an aggrieved borrower does not answer the
Complainant’s separate grievance. The Complainant is
neither borrower nor mortgagor.
h. No Objection Certificate dated 20.04.2022 is limited in
scope and it did not amount to a waiver of the
Complainant’s rights under the said Agreement nor did it
authorize the lender to extinguish the Complainant’s
contractual and statutory rights without notice or hearing.
i. Impleadment is sought not to convert the bank into a
promoter but because it has direct and immediate claim
over the said flat.
j. If the lender is not before this Authority, any protective
order passed by the Authority may become ineffective in
the face of imminent possession and possible third party
rights.
k. In union bank of India Vs. Rajasthan Real Estate
Regulatory Authority, the Rajasthan High Court has held
that upon a bank taking recourse to measures under
Section 13(4) of SARFAESI in a real estate project, the
RERA Authority could entertain a complaint against the
secured creditor and that where there is a conflict between
the said Act and SARFAESI, the said Act would prevail.

7. The proposed Respondent has repeated and reiterate the
contents of the reply filed by them and hence, the same are not
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 13 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

8. It is seen that admittedly, the Respondents had availed home loan
from the proposed Respondent and on account of failure of the
Respondents to make payment of home loan instalment, the
proposed Respondent has initiated SARFAESI Proceeding against
the Respondents, in which, order is passed by the Hon’ble Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Thane directing the proposed Respondent
to take physical possession of the said flat. The present complaint
has been filed by the Complainant seeking balance consideration
with respect to the said flat and to terminate the said Agreement on
account of repeated failures of the Respondents to make the
payment of the amount due as per the demands of the Complainant.
In my opinion, since both the parties i.e. the Complainant and the
proposed Respondent derived rights in their favour in respect of the
said flat even though through 2 different documents executed by
and between the parties to the respective Agreements, it has become
imperative that the name of the Proposed Respondent is impleaded
in the present complaint as Respondent No. 3. Moreover, it is seen
that in the present application, the Complainant has also sought
prayer to allow the Complainant to amend the present complaint as
per the schedule annexed to the present application. Since, I have
already directed to implead the proposed Respondent as
Respondent No. 3, the Complainant is allowed to amend the present
complaint as per the schedule of amendments annexed with the
present application.

9. In my considered opinion, due to proposed amendment the nature
of the complaint is not going to be changed. Moreover, in order to

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 14 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

adjudicate the complaint properly at once and to avoid the
multiplicity of the litigation, it is just and necessary to allow the
amendment application and to permit the Complainant to amend
the complaint.

10. So far as regards, restraining the Respondent No. 3 from taking
physical possession or restraining them from auctioning the said
flat since the Respondent No. 3 is planning to take physical
possession on 07.08.2026 in pursuance of the order dated 22.05.2026
passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane
is concerned, it is imperative to state here that this Authority is not
sitting in a capacity of Appellate Authority/Tribunal against the
orders passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thane. Hence, this Authority has no power to stay the operation of
order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thane and hence, the Complainant may take
appropriate steps in this behalf before the Appropriate Authority.
Not only this, it is seen that the present complaint has been filed by
the Complainant assumably under Section 11(5) and Section 19(6)
and 19(7) of the said Act against the Respondents in terms of the
said Agreement, to which, the Respondent No. 3 is not a party,
hence, no directions can be any way passed by this Authority
against the Respondent No. 3. Hence, in my considered opinion, the
present application deserves to be allowed partly. Hence, I pass the
following order:
ORDER

1. The Application is allowed as follows :-

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 15 of 15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2. The proposed Respondent be added as the Respondent No. 3.

3. The Complainant is allowed to amend the complaint within four
corners of the schedule of the amendments.

4. The Complainant is directed to upload the amended complaint on
the MahaRERA website within 7 days from this order.

5. Prayer of the Complainant with regards to restraining the
Respondents or any person acting through them stands rejected.

6. No order as to costs.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member II, MahaRERA
Date :- 07.08.2026
RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.08.07
16:57:48 +05'30'