CC006000000195629

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference
as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000195629

1. SEEMA HEDAOO

2. T.S. RAJKIRAN

3. AYAZ KAZI …COMPLAINANTS
VS

1. WELVAN SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED

2. . SHAMIRTH INFRA PRIVATE LIMTED

3. TULSIDAS KHIMJI PATEL

4. CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA
LIMITED (CIDCO)
…RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700006252

Order on maintainability application

19. 05.2026
(Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Advocate Ritika Iyer Complainants
Advocate Avdhut Bidaye for Respondents no2&3
None for Respondent no1&4

1. The Respondent preferred the Maintainability Application seeking dismissal of
Complaint with costs and for such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Authority may
deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. The Respondent submits that the allegations and contentions raised by the
Complainants are vague, misconceived, false, baseless and devoid of any
merits. It is further submitted that the Respondent has complied with all the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and has

CC006000000195629

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

acted bona fide at all material times.

3. It is the case of the Respondent that Respondent No. 1 i.e. Shamirth Infra Private
Limited is the assignee of the project “Parth IT Park” situated at Plot Bearing
CTS/Survey/Final Plot No. 86A at Navi Mumbai (M Corp.), Thane – 400614
from the erstwhile developer Welvan Securities Private Limited.

4. The Respondent submits that the present joint Complaint has been filed by
allottees having different flat numbers and distinct causes of action. According
to the Respondent, as per MahaRERA Order No. 11, group complaints are
maintainable only in respect of common reliefs under Sections 7 and 8 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 or in respect of common
amenities, whereas individual reliefs are required to be agitated by filing
separate Complaints. Hence, it is contended that the present Complaint suffers
from misjoinder of parties and causes of action and is therefore not
maintainable. It is further submitted that the dispute with Complainant Seema
Hedaoo has been amicably settled and draft consent terms have already been
circulated and the same shall be filed within four weeks.

5. The Respondent further submits that one of the Complainants namely Ayaz
Kazi has already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 53 of 2024 before the Hon’ble
Civil Judge, Senior Division at Navi Mumbai against the same Respondent
seeking similar reliefs. According to the Respondent, parallel proceedings for
the same cause of action and reliefs before two different forums are not
maintainable and therefore the present Complaint deserves to be dismissed.

6. The Respondent submits that grave prejudice, harm and loss would be caused if
the present Application is not allowed, whereas no prejudice would be caused
to the Complainants. The Respondent has further sought liberty to add, amend
or alter the present Application and to produce such further documents,
material and legal provisions as may be necessary

7. The Complainants have not filed reply on maintainability application and
contested the same.

8. I have perused the record and submissions advanced by the Respondent. The

CC006000000195629

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

Respondent has challenged the maintainability of the present Complaint mainly
on the ground that the Complaint has been jointly filed by different allottees in
respect of different units and separate causes of action. It is also contended that
one of the Complainants namely Ayaz Kazi has already filed Special Civil Suit
No. 53 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Civil Judge, Senior Division at Navi Mumbai
against the Respondent.

9. Upon consideration of the material on record, it appears that the objections
raised by the Respondent regarding maintainability involve questions of facts
and law which require detailed consideration at the stage of final hearing.
Whether the Complaint is maintainable in its present form and whether the
reliefs sought by the Complainants can be decided jointly are issues which can
be appropriately adjudicated after hearing all parties on merits.

10. Further, the contention regarding pendency of proceedings before the Civil
Court and its effect on the present Complaint also requires examination of the
pleadings and reliefs sought in both proceedings. Therefore, the same cannot be
conclusively decided at this preliminary stage.

11. In view thereof, I am not inclined to allow the present Maintainability
Application at this stage. However, the Respondent is at liberty to raise all
contentions regarding maintainability at the time of final hearing of the
Complaint. Hence, the following order: -

ORDER

A. The Maintainability Application stands rejected.


Date:19.05.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.05.19 15:05:34
+05'30'