Complaint No. CC12504658


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC12504658

Raj Shivganga Co Op Housing Society Ltd​ ​
​
... Complainant

Versus

Raj Arcades & Enclaves Private Limited​
​
​
... Respondent


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800008454
​
​
​


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

C. A. Mr. Dilip Agarwal appeared for the complainant – through VC. ​

Ld.Adv. Fleur D'Souza appeared for the respondent No. 1 – through VC.
Ld.Adv.Yogesh Naidu appeared for the respondent No. 2 – through VC.


INTERIM ORDER


(Wednesday, 04th February 2026)
(Hearing Through Hybrid Mode)

1. ​
The complainant-society above named has filed this online complaint before the MahaRERA on
28-12-2025 and prayed MahaRERA to (a) Declare the Agreement for Sale dated 18-12-2020
executed in respect of Unit No. 1404 as illegal, void ab initio, and non est. (b) Direct cancellation
of all rights, title, and interest, if any, created by Respondent No. 1 (Promoter) in respect of Unit
No. 1404. (c) Declare Unit No. 1404 as a common facility (Fitness Centre) for the exclusive use of
the members of the Society, in accordance with the approved plans and as mandated under
Section 17(2) of the RERA. (d) Hold and declare that Respondent No. 1 had no authority in law
to sell or otherwise alienate common amenities / utilities, and further declare that Respondent
No. 1 has indulged in unfair practices and irregularities in violation of Section 7(1)(c) of the
RERA. (e) Direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to issue the Occupation Certificate,
treating Unit No. 1404 as a Fitness Centre, in accordance with the approved plans etc as
prescribed under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the respondent’s registered project known as
“Raj Shivganga” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800008454, located at Borivali.

2. ​
This complaint was heard by the MahaRERA today as per the Circular No. 49 dated 12-09-2025
issued by MahaRERA for hearing of complaints through Hybrid Mode. Both the parties have
been issued prior intimation of this hearing, and they were also informed to file their written
submissions if any. Accordingly, both the parties appeared and made their submissions.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 2
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC12504658

3. ​
During the course of hearing, the respondent No. 1 has submitted that that NCLT proceeding
has been initiated against the respondent - promoter under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Hence, the MahaRERA has perused the
available record.

4. ​
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 Hon’ble National Company Law
Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order dated 12-07-2022 in CP (IB) No. 607/MB/2021
filed by Mr. Bhanwarlal Taparia , i.e., the Financial Creditor therein, against the respondent no.1
promoter herein, thereby admitting the respondent no. 1 herein into Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016. Further, as recorded in operative para – “ORDER (G)” of the, said order passed by
the NCLT dated 12-07-2022, moratorium period has already been ordered against the
respondent no. 1 promoter.

5. ​
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 no. 1 promoter herein.
Hence, institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the
respondent no. 1 promoter herein including execution of any

JUDGMENT

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

6. ​
In the present case, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the NCLT, the MahaRERA cannot
proceed to decide this complaint against the respondent no. 1 promoter herein at this stage and
hence the present complaint is adjourned sine die.

7. ​
However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach MahaRERA after final disposal of
the said insolvency proceeding pending against the respondent no. 1 promoter herein, if need
be.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA

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

MAHESH
DINKAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by MAHESH
DINKAR PATHAK
Date: 2026.02.06
17:13:05 +05'30'