CC12401222

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC12401222

1. MR AJAY KRISHNAKANT VAKIL

2. MRS. PRITI AJAY VAKIL

…COMPLAINANTS
Vs
NITIN DATTARAM SAMANT
…RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800003379

ORDER
(24.03.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 02.02.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA

Adv Yashpal Jain for the complainants
Adv Humera Sayeed for the Respondent
The present application is filed by the respondent challenging the
maintainability of the present complaint.
In short, the facts of the application are as under:
According to the respondent, the complainants are relatives of the
respondent, and they are investors. In the year 2013 the complainants
invested funds and were issued an allotment letter dated 25.07.2013, flat
no 601 only as security for the repayment of Rs. 1,27,51,000/- within 37
months out of said amount, Rs. 27,00,000/- refunded to the respondent in
cash and balance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- remained payable, for which

CC12401222

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

additional allotment letter 22.10.2014 for flat no. 201 was issued as
security. The respondent repaid Rs 1,00,00,000/- and the earlier
allotments stood cancelled, thereby closing the transaction of 2013.
Thereafter, the complainants advanced Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, with an agreed
return of approximately. 17.14% p.a, repayable monthly payment of Rs.
1,00,000/-. In this context, the allotment letter dated 01.11.2016 was issued
for flat nos. B- 1901 and B-1902 for Rs 1,16,05,000/- purely as security.
The Respondent claims to have paid Rs. 51,00,000/- between 05.12.2016
and 16.03.2020 and sought extension beyond the due date 30.09.2019 till

31. 12.2019. As additional security, the allotment letter dated 01.10.2018 for
Flat No. C-1901 for Rs.59,40,000/- was issued according to the
respondents. The Respondent contends that only Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs.
2,97,900/- remains payable and that the Complaint is an abuse of process,
as the transaction is a loan arrangement not covered under RERA Act.
The complainant has filed a reply and Written Arguments and opposed
this application containing that :
The application is frivolous, and no provision under the Act permits
rejection of a complaint at the threshold. It is further contended that the
Respondent has failed to file a reply to the Complaint despite
opportunities, and hence the averments remain uncontroverted. The
Complainants have denied that they are investors and conteneted that
they are allottees of specific flats in a registered project. The Respondent
issued an allotment letter dated 01.11.2016 for Flat Nos. B-1901 and B-1902
against payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Due to failure of repayment and
possession, allotment letter dated 01.10.2018 for Flat No. C-1901 for
Rs.59,40,000/- was issued. The Respondent has failed to execute

CC12401222

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Agreements for Sale and has acknowledged receipt of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-,
including in a letter dated 25.09.2019. The allotment letters contain clauses
providing that upon default, they operate as an Agreement for Sale and
confer ownership rights, including transfer and society membership. The
Complaint raises statutory violations, including non-execution of the
Agreement for Sale, delay in possession, and lack of construction
progress. The Complainants have denied all allegations regarding cash
payments, prior transactions, and financial arrangements, stating that
earlier transactions are irrelevant and closed. It is further contended that
the Complaint discloses a clear cause of action under Sections 13, 18, 19,
read with Section 31 of the RERA Act and involves disputed facts
requiring adjudication on merits.
At the outset, it is necessary to examine the statutory framework. Section
2(d) of the Act defines an “allottee”. It states that a person to whom an
apartment has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the
promoter. Section 31 of the Act permits “any aggrieved person” to file a
complaint for violation of the provisions of the Act. In the present case, it
is undisputed that allotment letters dated 01.11.2016 and 01.10.2018 have
been issued in respect of specific flats in a registered project and that
substantial consideration has been received. The contention that such
allotments were issued merely as security in a financial transaction
involves disputed questions of fact and law requiring detailed
examination of documents and the conduct of parties. The allotment
letters prima facie indicates creation of rights in identified units and
contain clauses whereby, upon default, they operate as agreements for
sale. Such issues cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. It

CC12401222

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

required detailed adjudication. No any finding at this stage can be
recorded whether the complainants are investors or allottees, hence in my
considered view, by keeping open points raised by the respondents at the
time of final hearing, the present application for rejection of the complaint
on the grounds of maintainability deserves to be rejected. Hence, I passed
the following orders.
O R D E R
The application is rejected.


Ravindra Deshpande


Member-II, MahaRERA
Date: 24.03.2026


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.24 12:37:27
+05'30'