Comp. No. CC005000000095863
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

Complaint No. CC005000000095863

Mr. Sandeep Subashchandra Mehta
..Complainant/s
Vs
Niraj Kumar Associates Pvt Ltd
Mr. Jayant Vallbhdas Kaneria
Mrs. Nisha Jayant Kanerai
Mr. Manish Vallabhdas Kaneria
Mr. Nikhil Vallabhdas Kanerai
Mr. Ranjit Buwaji Nimhan
..Respondent/s

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100010610

O R D E R
(31.07.2024)
(Date of Hearing: 11.07.2024)

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

Ld. Adv. Shantanu Dekhane for Complainant/s
Ld. Adv. Mihir Pethe for Respondent/s

1. The respondent has filed present application contending that the complainant
has arrayed the respondent no. 1 (Promoter)
and certain individuals
as
respondents in the present matter. According to the applicant respondent, as
per Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act, 2016 any
aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating
officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of
this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter
allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be.

2. It is the contention of the respondent no. 1 that the respondent nos. 2 to 6 are
neither
promoter, allottee nor real estate agent and therefore, they cannot be
made party to the present complaint which is filed u/s 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulations and Development) Act, 2016.
The complainant has not pleaded

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

Comp. No. CC005000000095863
any grievances against the respondent nos. 2 to 6 nor there are prayers against
the respondent nos. 2 to 6, therefore, it is necessary to delete the names of the
respondent nos. 2 to 6 as party to the present complaint, and complainant may
kindly be directed to filed a fresh amended complaint.

3. Otherside
has filed the reply and resisted the present application contending
that application under reply is misconceived
and devoid
of any merits
therefore,
deserves to be rejected. The application in question filed with the
sole intention
of delaying
final hearing of the present complaint.
The
complainant has specifically pleaded in the complaint that respondent no. 2 to 6
are directors of the respondent no. 1 and looking after the day to day affairs of
the respondent no. 1 and therefore,
responsible
for management of the
respondent no. 1 and hence, necessary
parties
for decision of the present
complaint. Hence, other side requested for rejection of the application.

4. Heard the advocates of the parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent
no. 1 that respondent no. 3 and 4 resigned as directors prior to filing of the
complaint and respondent no. 6 passed away in the year 2021. No case can be
filed against the respondent nos. 2 to 6, therefore, their names may be deleted.

5. The advocate of the complainant has submitted that present complaint filed in
the year 2021
and at that time, the complainant was not aware whether the
respondent no. 6 is alive or not.
The respondent nos. 2 to 5 are directors of
the company
and they are responsible
for day to day administration
of
respondent no. 1 and they are vicariously liable for the act of the company i.e.
respondent no. 1.

6. The advocates of the respondent no. 1 uploaded on MahaRERA website written
argument on 26.07.2024 and contended that respondent no. 6 has passed away
on 30.09.2021 and the same is pleaded by respondent no. 1 in his written say.
Inspite of that the complainant has not taken any steps to rectify defect from

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

Comp. No. CC005000000095863
the complaint and attempting
to proceed in adjudication of complaint by
making
dead person party to the complaint.
It is also contended
that
respondent nos. 3 and 4 have resigned
from their respective
positions as
Director in and around 2020, before filing of the present complaint. The said
fact is also mentioned in the reply by the respondent no. 1.
Thereafter also
complainant has failed to take necessary steps to delete the names of the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 from the complaint.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that as per Section 31 of the
RERA Act, any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the
provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any
promoter, allottee or real estate agent, and not against the third person. Hence,
name of the respondent nos. 2 to 6 may be deleted.

8. It is seen that the complainant has filed present complaint
against the
respondent no. 1, Niraj Kumar Associates Pvt. Ltd. and five others.
It is the
contention
of the complainant and in reply filed to this application
that
respondent nos. 2 to 6 are directors of the respondent no. 1 and looking after
day to day affairs
of the respondent no. 1 and they are responsible
for
management of the respondent no. 1. It is not disputed that respondent no. 1 is
promoter.
It is seen that no any death certificate is uploaded on MahaRERA
website that
respondent no. 6 passed away in the year 2021. So also no any
documentary evidence is uploaded on MahaRERA website to show that
respondent nos. 3 and 4 resigned as Directors of the respondent no. 1 prior to
filing of the present complaint. Admittedly as per Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulations and Development) Act, 2016, any aggrieved person
may file
complaint for violation
or contradiction of provisions of RERA Act or Rules
against the promoter, allottee or real estate agents. It is the contention of the
complainant that respondent no. 1 is promoter and respondent no. 2 to 6 are

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

Comp. No. CC005000000095863
directors of the respondent no.1 and they are responsible for day to day affairs
of the respondent no. 1.
In my opinion considering facts
that no any death
certificate is uploaded on MahaRERA website to show that respondent no. 6
expired on 30.09.2021 and respondent nos. 3 and 4 resigned as directors of the
respondent no. 1, prior to filing of the present complaint. In the absence of such
documentary evidence, at this stage, it is not desirable to delete the names of
respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 as respondent.
Hence in my opinion
only oral
contention of the respondent no. 1 is not sufficient to delete the names of the
respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 as respondent. Hence,
in my opinion present
application deserves to be rejected. Hene, I pass following order:
O R D E R

1. The application is rejected.
(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date : 31.07.2024

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2024.07.31
16:37:21 +05'30'