COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Hearing held through hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 48/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072

1. KIRTI BURAD

2. SUMIT SAJJAN BURAD …COMPLAINANTS
Vs

1. MARVEL OMEGA BUILDER PVT. LTD.

2. MARVEL REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS LTD. …RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project registration No. P52100002648


INTERIM ORDER

16. 12.2025
(Date of Hearing: 21.08.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member 2, MahaRERA

Adv. Sancheti present for the Complainant
Adv. Nilesh Borate present for Respondent No.2

1. The Respondent No. 2 has filed the present application praying to keep the
present matter in abeyance. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that the matter is
listed for filing of reply by the respondents. It is stated that the Hon’ble
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), vide order dated 06.09.2024, has
admitted the company petition filed against Respondent No. 1, Marvel Omega
Builders Pvt. Ltd., and has initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process (CIRP).

2. By virtue of the said admission order, a statutory moratorium under Section 14
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has been declared, thereby
prohibiting the institution or continuation of any suits or proceedings against
the corporate debtor. It is further submitted that one of the Directors of
Respondent No. 1, Mr. Vishwajeet Jhavar, preferred an appeal before the
Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

order dated 06.09.2024. The Hon’ble NCLAT, vide its order dated 23.12.2024,
directed the Financial Creditor to file an appropriate application under Section
12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, within a period of two
weeks. The Hon’ble NCLAT further directed that until disposal of such
application, no further steps shall be taken in the CIRP and that subsequent
actions shall be governed by the directions of the Adjudicating Authority. The
said appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

3. The Respondent No. 2 submits that the application under Section 12A is still
pending adjudication before the Hon’ble NCLT. It is also brought on record
that the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench Court III, vide order dated 22.09.2025,
has directed continuation of CIRP activities and has posted the matter for
further hearing on 11.12.2025. In view of the subsisting moratorium and
ongoing proceedings before the Hon’ble NCLT, Respondent No. 2 has prayed
that the present complaint be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the
proceedings before the NCLT, along with any other order deemed fit in the
interest of justice.

4. The matter was listed on the 30.10.2025, wherein the roznama was recorder as
Both parties were present except Respondent No. 1, against whom an ex-parte
order has already been passed on 30.06.2025. The Complainant sought a no-say
order against Respondent No. 2 on the ground that Respondent No. 2, also a
promoter, is using the insolvency proceedings of Respondent No. 1 to delay the
matter. Respondent No. 2 opposed and relied upon the NCLT order dated

06. 09.2024 imposing a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and further
referred to the NCLT order dated 22.09.2025 showing that the Section 12A
application is still pending and CIRP continues, thereby requesting that the
matter be kept in abeyance. The Complainant submitted that both application
Respondent No. 2’s application for abeyance and the Complainant’s
application for no-say, may be treated as replies to each other. Considering that
both sides have filed applications, the Authority held that both applications are
required to be decided together on or before 25.11.2025. Matter is adjourned to

11. 12.2025.

5. The complainant has filed the application for the No say order which is to be
treated as the reply to the present application filed by the Respondent No.2.
The Complainant submits that they had earlier filed
Complaint No.
CC005000000011903
before the Hon’ble Adjudicating Officer, Pune, which was
partly allowed on 06.03.2020 by directing the Respondents to pay interest at

10. 35% per annum on Rs. 89,54,025/- from 01.04.2016 till delivery of possession,


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

along with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. However, the Non-Compliance Application
filed on 02.12.2020 came to be dismissed after the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s


JUDGMENT

in Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP (Civil
Appeal 6745/2021), whereby the Adjudicating Officer held that he lacks
jurisdiction to grant refund or interest, rendering the earlier order non-est.
Consequently, the Complainants were compelled to amend the present
Complaint, which amendment was permitted on 30.07.2024 and filed on

02. 09.2024.

6. The Complainants further submit that the Respondents failed to file their reply
to the original and amended complaint within the prescribed period of thirty
days. On 26.12.2024, the Respondents’ advocate informed that CIRP had been
initiated against Respondent No. 1 in CP No. (IB) 2454/(MB)/C-I/2023. The
Complainants assert that both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are
promoters, signatories to the Unit Agreement, and part of the same group, and
therefore jointly responsible under the Act.

7. The complainant further submit that despite the objective of the Act to ensure
speedy redressal, the Respondents have continuously delayed proceedings
since 2018 under the guise of CIRP. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble
NCLT in Mysore Petro Chemical Ltd. vs. Vandana Gard (RP), the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in Power Grid Corporation vs. Jyoti Structures, and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India, the
Complainants argue that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not
bar continuation of all pending proceedings, as its scope is limited to protecting
the assets of the Corporate Debtor and enabling maximisation of value.

8. The Complainants therefore submit that the Respondents are deliberately
protracting and delaying the matter and pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal be
pleased to pass a no say order against the Respondents. Without prejudice,
even if CIRP is in force against Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 2, being a
promoter and signatory to the agreement, remains bound to comply with the
directions of this Hon’ble Authority. The Complainants accordingly pray for
passing of a no say order and any other order in the interest of justice.

9. This Authority has perused the application filed by Respondent No. 2 seeking
to keep the present proceedings in abeyance, no say application filed by the
Complainants, the documents placed on record, and the orders passed by the
Hon’ble NCLT and Hon’ble NCLAT in relation to Respondent No. 1.


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

10. It is an admitted fact that the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench, vide order dated

06. 09.2024, has admitted CP (IB) No. 2454/(MB)/C-I/2023 and has initiated the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Respondent No. 1,
thereby declaring a statutory moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The said moratorium continues to remain
in force. It is observed that the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench Court III, vide
order dated 22.09.2025, has recorded that the Section 12A application is still
pending and has permitted continuation of CIRP activities, posting the matter
on 11.12.2025. This Authority also notes that the Section 12A application, as
directed by the Hon’ble NCLAT on 23.12.2024, is still pending before the
Hon’ble NCLT. Since Section 12A governs withdrawal and termination of CIRP
subject to the approval of ninety percent of the Committee of Creditors,
adjudication by this Authority during its pendency may prejudice or conflict
with the proceedings before the Hon’ble NCLT. Hence, judicial propriety
warrants that this Authority defer adjudication until the Hon’ble NCLT
disposes of the said Section 12A application. Thus, the CIRP is presently
subsisting and is under active consideration of the Adjudicating Authority.

11. In view of the above judicial orders, this Authority finds that a statutory
moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC is in force in respect of Respondent No.
1, restraining institution or continuation of any proceedings against the
corporate debtor until completion of CIRP or passing of any contrary directions
by the Hon’ble NCLT. The Complainants have submitted that Section 14 does
not bar continuation of all proceedings, and that Respondent No. 2, being a
promoter and co-signatory, is independently liable. Reliance is placed on
Mysore Petro Chemical Ltd. vs. Vandana Gard, Power Grid Corporation vs. Jyoti
Structures Ltd., and Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India.
The Complainants also contend that Respondent No. 2 is seeking delay by
relying on the insolvency of Respondent No. 1.

12. This Authority is conscious of the legal position that the moratorium under
Section 14 is limited in scope and does not automatically bar all proceedings
against non-corporate debtor entities. However, the present complaint, on
facts, arises out of the same registered project, the same Unit Agreement, and
involves overlapping and inseparable obligations of Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2, both being disclosed promoters of the project. It is further
noted that the reliefs sought include refund/interest/compensation linked to
performance of the project and obligations of the Promoter, including
Respondent No. 1 (the corporate debtor under CIRP). Any adjudication of
merits at this stage has a direct and substantial bearing on the liabilities and


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

rights of the corporate debtor, which directly fall within the domain of the
Hon’ble NCLT under the IBC.

13. This Authority must therefore exercise caution to ensure that no orders are
passed which may conflict with or prejudice the CIRP, especially when the
Hon’ble NCLT is actively seized of the matter and the Section 12A application
is pending adjudication. It is also relevant that Respondent No. 1 has already
been proceeded ex-parte by order dated 30.06.2025, and adjudication in the
absence of the corporate debtor, during currency of moratorium, may result in
an order contrary to Section 14 and in potential conflict with the orders of the
Hon’ble NCLT.

14. The Complainants’ application for a “no-say” order is founded on the alleged
failure of the Respondents to file reply. However, once CIRP has been admitted
and the moratorium declared, the right of audience or filing by the corporate
debtor is governed by the IBC framework and cannot form a basis to pass a
no-say order in derogation of Section 14.

15. This Authority therefore finds that till such time the Hon’ble NCLT decides the
pending Section 12A application and issues further directions in CIRP, it would
not be appropriate for this Authority to proceed with adjudication against
Respondent No. 1, or pass any order which may affect the ongoing insolvency
process. As regards Respondent No. 2, though the Complainants contend that
he is jointly liable as a promoter, this Authority is of the view that the liabilities
of Respondent No. 2 are so integrally connected to the role and obligations of
Respondent No. 1 (the corporate debtor) that bifurcated adjudication may lead
to inconsistent outcomes, which is impermissible when CIRP is pending.

16. It is observed that the present proceedings have already been kept in abeyance
by order dated 06.09.2024. All procedural timelines, including the filing of a
reply to the main complaint, is lapsed. In view of this authority when the
proceedings are kept in abeyance. No party can be prejudiced against the
Respondents. The right of the Respondents to file replies to the main complaint
cannot be curtailed while the proceedings is kept in abeyance. However,
liberty is granted to the Complainants to approach MahaRERA after the final
disposal of insolvency proceedings pending against the Respondents. This
Authority cannot proceed to adjudicate the present complaint against the
respondents due to the pendency of the insolvency proceeding.


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000075072


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

17. In view of the above circumstances and judicial mandates of the Hon’ble NCLT
and Hon’ble NCLAT, this Authority is proceed to pass the following order :--

ORDER

1. The Respondent No. 2’s application seeking to keep the proceedings in
abeyance is allowed.

2. The Complainants application for passing No Say order has been rejected.

3. The Complainants are liberty to approach MahaRERA after final disposal
of insolvency proceedings pending against the Respondents.


Date: 16.12.2025


Ravindra Deshpande,
Member 2, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.12.16
15:26:55 +05'30'