BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

Complaint No. CC12401116

MANTRA INSIGNIA ABCDE PREMISES CSL


...COMPLAINANT
Vs
MANTRA INSIGNIA LLP ...RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100001105


INTERIM ORDER


(05/12/2025)
(Date of Hearing: 06/11/2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2, MahaRERA

Adv. Makarand Paradkar is present for Complainant
Adv. Nilesh Borate is present for the Respondent

1. The Complainant has filed the present application to issue an

INTERIM ORDER

to stop work
immediately during the pendency of the complaint.
In short facts of the application are as follows:

2. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is Promoter of the above said project and has
started the construction work in the premises of the Complainant. If the Respondent is not
immediately stopped from carrying out construction activity the same would result into
multiplicity of litigation, hence this Complainant craves to seek following reliefs by way of
this interim application with the Actual Site Photographs are attached herewith this
application.
The Complainant prayed for reliefs:
a. This Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to pass an

INTERIM ORDER

to stay the construction activity
carried out in premises of the Complainant by the respondent or any other person claiming through
respondent.
b. This Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to direct the Respondent not to create any third-party
interest by selling common area belonging to the Complainant society as a Open parking or under any
such similar terminology i.e. Semi covered parking/ mechanical parking etc.
c. This Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to direct the Police officer of Mundhawa Pune in whose
jurisdiction the project is located, to intervene and stop the construction activity if so required.
d. Any other relief in favor of the Complainant that this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit.

3. There is a reply to the present application filed by the Respondent are as follows:

4. According to the Respondent, the present application filed with ulterior motives and
malafide intend to harass the Respondents and obstruct the lawful execution of the project.

5. It is further submitted that the Respondents categorically and unequivocally deny each and
every allegation, contention, and statement made in the application, except to the extend
expressly admitted herein and all allegations, insinuations and imputations made by the
Complainant are false, frivolous, vexatious, and denied in toto. The issue raised in the
application are outside the purview and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble authority. Therefore, the
application liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

6. It is also submitted that the Respondent further deny that continuation of any alleged
construction would lead to multiplicity of proceeding as claimed and the common areas and
marginal spaces in front of the shops are to be owned and managed by the
promoter/association/federation, and not by the Complainant society. The photographs
annexed by the Complainant are disputed and denied for want of authenticity. The
Complainant society’s members who have been misusing the space in front of the shops for
authorized purposes such as visitors parking, setting up stalls, placing name boards,
umbrellas, carrying on commercial activities without permissions from competent
authorities.

7. The respondent in the reply prayed for:
a. Dismiss the present application with costs.
b. Direct the Complainant society to immediately cease and remove all authorized
commercial activities and obstructions in front of the shops.
c. Restrain the Complainant society and its member from misusing common areas and from
making false, defamatory, or obstructive statements against the Respondent.
d. Pass any other orders as this hon’ble authority may deem fit in the interest of justice.

8. There is an additional reply to the present application filed by the Respondent are as follows:

9. According to the Respondent, Complainant has failed to produce any credible, cogent or
admissible evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the interim application and the
claims are unsupported by documentation, statutory permissions, expert reports
authenticated photographs. It is further submitted that the authority has consistently held
that interim reliefs cannot be granted in the absence of prima facie evidence indicating
urgency, illegality or imminent harm.

10. It is further submitted that to grant ad-interim relief, three essential conditions must co-exist:
prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It is submitted that the
Complainant satisfies none of these. There is no prima facie case as the allegations are
unsupported and factually incorrect. It is further submitted that there is no irreparable loss
as no material is produced showing any harm or risk to the Complainant.

11. According to the Respondent, Respondents have full statutory permissions for all ongoing
works have complied with all environmental, municipal and planning regulations and have
ensured that no activity affects the Complainants legal rights. It is further submitted that the
Complainant has not produced any document from PMC, PCMC, Fire department, town
planning, or any other authority alleging violation.

12. According to the Respondent, the present application is intended to arm- twist the
Respondent to obstruct lawful development to create artificial urgency where none exists to
derive unauthorized control over common/marginal areas and to commercially exploit the
situation. It is also submitted that the application to issue an

INTERIM ORDER

of the Complainant
be rejected with heavy costs.

13. In view of the application and the reply and additional reply filed by the parties, I have gone
through the same and I have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the
material placed on record.

14. The complainant through this application is requesting this authority to pass an

INTERIM ORDER


to stay the construction activity carried out in the premises of the complainant by the
respondent and is also requesting to direct the respondent not to create any third party
interest by selling common area belonging to the complainant society as open parking or
under any such similar terminology. It is contention of the respondent in reply to this
application that the respondents are carrying out activities strictly within sanctioned
permissions, while the complainant seeks to restrain lawful development. The complainant
is attempting to convert civil/ commercial disputes into RERA matter, although the issues
raised are pertaining to ownership and use of marginal spaces, alleged encroachments,
society management issues, and inter- se disputes among the members. The respondents
have full statutory permissions for all ongoing works, have complied with all environmental,
municipal and planning regulations and have, ensured that no activity affects the
complainant’s legal rights. No any document from PMC/ PCMC/ Town Planning or any
competent authority demonstrating that the Respondent’s ongoing construction is
unauthorized or violative of any statutory permissions. The photographs annexed are not
authenticated and their evidentary value is disputed. No material indicating imminent or

irreparable harm is brought on record. The Respondent asserts having valid statutory
approvals for all works, which has not been rebutted by the Complainant. Halting
construction at an interim stage, in absence of demonstrable illegality, would cause
disproportionate hardship to the Respondent. Certain issues relating to ownership/use of
common areas or marginal spaces fall outside the limited scope of jurisdiction of MahaRERA.

15. In my considered opinion, the complainant is required to approach before appropriate forum
for the issues raised in this application. In my considered view, the prayers from the
application are beyond the jurisdiction of MahaRERA authority. Hence, the present
application deserves to be rejected. Hence, I pass following orders.
ORDER

1. The application is rejected.

2. Cost in cause.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date: 05/12/2025


RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.12.05
14:23:01 +05'30'