Complaint No:-CC006000000196509

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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hearing held through hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 48/2025


CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000196509

1. VARUN VIJAY SHARMA

2. MS. MANDEEPKAUR R MUNDRA …COMPLAINANTS

Versus

M/S. MAN REALTY LIMITED …RESPONDENT


MahaRERA Project registration No. P5170001310


O R D E R
On the application of the Complainant.
(Order Date- 09.09.2025)

1. The Complainant are seeking the leave of this Hon’ble Authority to amend the
said complaint by impleading an additional party as Respondent No. 2,
namely Purva Oak Private Limited, who has now assumed charge of the
concerned project as the new Promoter. In support thereof, the Complainant
have annexed a copy of the amended complaint as Exhibit A.

2. The grounds for the proposed amendment, as put forth by the Complainant,
are inter alia as follows:

a. The amendment sought is not inconsistent with the original averments, cause
of action, or reliefs claimed in the original complaint.
b. The omission of the proposed Respondent in the original complaint was neither
intentional nor deliberate but has arisen due to subsequent developments
wherein the charge of the project has been assumed by the said new Promoter.

3. Accordingly, the Complainant have prayed before this Hon’ble Authority as
under:
a. To allow the present Application and grant leave to amend the
complaint by impleading Purva Oak Private Limited as Respondent
No. 2.

Complaint No:-CC006000000196509

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

4. The proposed Respondent No. 2 has filed its Affidavit in Reply opposing the
said Application to the the present Miscellaneous Application dated 03.01.2025
has been filed by the Complainants seeking impleadment of Purva Oak Pvt. Ltd.
as Respondent No. 2 to the captioned complaint.

5. It is submitted in the reply of the proposed Respondent No. 2 that it was never
privy to the transactions and dealings between the Complainants and the
existing Respondent No. 1, and therefore, no cause of action arises against it. It
is further contended that the proposed Respondent No. 2 entered into the
project only in the year 2024 pursuant to a sale certificate under the SARFAESI
Act dated 07.06.2024, and was thereafter approved as new promoter by
MahaRERA under Section 15 of the Act on 13.08.2024. Prior to this date, all
dealings, payments, and alleged defaults were exclusively between the
Complainants and Respondent No. 1.

6. The proposed Respondent No. 2 has relied upon the Project Management
Agreement dated 12.07.2024 between Respondent No. 1, which clearly
stipulates that Respondent No. 1 shall be solely responsible for the claims of
allottees who have not consented to the change of plans. Since the
Complainants are admittedly such allottees, it is urged that liability, if any,
rests entirely upon Respondent No. 1.

7. It is also contended that no monies have been received by Respondent No. 2
from the Complainants, nor was any liability regarding pre-EMI interest ever
communicated to it by Respondent No. 1. Reliance has been placed on the


JUDGMENT

in Allwyn Cyril Dcosta & Ors. vs Mount Mary Builders & Ors. to
contend that refund liability lies upon the party which has actually received the
consideration. The proposed Respondent No. 2 has further placed reliance on
the decision in Shiva Dayal Kapoor & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr. to submit that
a stranger to a contract cannot be bound by its terms. It is also highlighted that
the project comprises more than 170 allottees awaiting possession and
fastening past liabilities of Respondent No. 1 upon the incoming promoter
would derail project completion, thereby defeating the object of RERA which
is primarily to secure timely delivery of homes.

8. It is further contended that the Complainants have not set out any cause of
action against the proposed Respondent No. 2, nor have they demonstrated
violation of any provision of the RERA by it. The necessity of impleadment is
not made out and the Application is vague and inconsistent with the original
complaint, which is entirely directed against Respondent No. 1.


Complaint No:-CC006000000196509

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

9. It is stated in the reply that the impleadment of the proposed Respondent No.
2 is neither proper nor necessary for adjudication of the dispute already
pending between the Complainants and Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the
Miscellaneous Application dated 03.01.2025 be rejected.

10. The issue for consideration before this Authority is whether the proposed
impleadment of Purva Oak Private Limited as Respondent No. 2 is necessary
and proper for adjudication of the complaint.

11. It is not in dispute that the proposed Respondent No. 2 has been substituted as
the promoter of the project by order of MahaRERA dated 13.08.2024 under
Section 15 of the RERA Act. The Respondent No. 2 mainly opposed the present
application, contending that, considering the project management agreement
dated 12.07.2024, between Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No.1, the
Respondent No.1 shall be solely responsible for the claims of the allottees who
have not consented to the change of plans. It is further the contention of the
Respondent No.2 that Complainants have not set out any cause of action
against the proposed Respondent No.2, nor have they demonstrated a violation
of any provision of RERA by it. The personal injury is caused to the
Complainants by the Respondent No.1 only. The Respondent No. 2 is not even
aware of the controversy between the parties. The application to implead M/S
Purva Oak Pvt. Ltd has been moved 4 years after the original complaint was
filed against the Respondent No.1. The proposed Respondent No.2 has taken
over the project under the provision of Securitization and Reconstruction of
financial assest and enforcement of security interest Act 2022 vide the sale
certificate dated 07.06.2024 it has not taken over the liability of Respondent
No.1. This is not a case of voluntary assignment of the project by the
Respondent No.1 to the proposed Respondent No.2. Section 15 of the RERA
Act is not attracted in the present case. The proposed Respondent No.2 was not
even in the picture when the subject flat was sold by the Respondent No .1 to
the Complainants.

12. It is not in dispute that the project now stands in the name of M/S Purva Oak
Private Limited as the new promoter recognized under Section 15 of the Act.
The contention raised by the proposed Respondent No.2 in reply to this
application in my opinion, required to be considered at the time of the final
hearing. In order to adjudicate the complaint on merits and in order to avoid
multiplicity of litigation, and moreover, the proposed Respondent No.2 is
having opportunity to upload a reply and contest the complaint. Hence as the
project now stands in the name of proposed Respondent No.2 in my opinion,
the application uploaded by the Complainant to amend the complaint and add

Complaint No:-CC006000000196509

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

proposed Respondent No.2 a new promoter deserves to be allowed. Hence I
proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous Application dated 03.01.2025 is allowed. The Complainants
are permitted to amend the complaint and to implead M/s Purva Oak Private
Limited as Respondent No. 2.

2. The Complainants are directed to upload the amended complaint within two
weeks from the date of this order, with a copy served upon both Respondents.

3. Cost in cause.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Date :- 09.09.2025
Member II, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARA
O
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.09.09
16:53:44 +05'30'


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

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

Complaint No. CC006000000196509

1. ​ VARUN VIJAY SHARMA

2. ​ MS. MANDEEPKAUR R MUNDRA​
​
…COMPLAINANTS
​
​
​
Vs
M/S. MAN REALTY LIMITED​
​
…RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700013100

I N T E R I M O R D E R
Order Date -12/09/2025

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA

Adv. Parth Chande for Complainant
None for Respondent no.1
Advocate Sharmila for Respondent No.2

1. ​ The respondent No. 1 has filed the present application requesting delete
the respondent No. 1 as party respondent from the present proceedings.

2. ​ In short, the facts of the application are as follows –

3. ​ It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that on account of intervening
events and on account of change in facts having a bearing on the hearing
and prosecution of the complaint, the respondent No. 1 filing present
application. The complainants has filed the present complaint against the
respondent No. 1 as promoter of the project within the meaning of the
section 2 (z)(k) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.
It is contention of the respondent No. 1 that M/s. Purva Oak Private
Limited has filed the application under section 5 of the RERA Act to take
over the project No. P51700013016 from the respondent. M/s. Purva Oak
Private Limited has been appointed as promoter within the meaning of

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

section 2 (z)(k) of RERA Act 2016. Registration Certificate of the project in
Form C was granted by the Authorized Officer of the MahaRERA on
13-08-2024 on the application filed by the M/s. Purva Oak Private Limited.
Present Respondent Man Realty Private Limited has erstwhile promoter is
no longer responsible for liabilities as promoter on account of intervening
and subsequent events of 13-08-2024 and 19-09-2024, on the said date the
application submitted by M/s. Purva Oak Private limited has been
allowed.

4. ​ Vide order dated 14-10-2024, impleadment of M/s. Purva Oak Private
limited has been allowed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.
AT/31681/2019 – Ms. Geeta Agarwal V/s. Man Global Limited and Man
Realty Limited. Subsequently, vide order dated 06-12-2024, order of
impleadement of M/s. Purva is confirmed by the MahaRERA Appellate
Tribunal. Impleadment of new promoter is also allowed by the RERA
Authority vide order dated 16-10-2024 in a complaint involving the same
respondent. Hence, the respondent requested that the present application
be allowed and the name of the respondent - Man Realty Limited be
deleted as party respondent from the present complaint.

5. ​ The Other side i.e. the complainants uploaded reply and opposed this
application contending that the application filed by the Man Realty
Limited in the present complaint is false and without merits and therefore,
is liable to be dismissed. The complainants refutes the assertion made by
the respondent in their submissions. The complainants asserts that having
entered into the contract with the respondent, the respondent cannot evade
their liability or responsibility merely on account of subsequent
intervening events. According to the complainant, the complainants have
not provided any consent to change the promoter, and no prior approval or
consent was obtained from them before the impleadment of Purva Oak
Private Limited. The present application filed by the respondent – Man

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

Realty Private Limited should be rejected and the respondent should not
be removed as party to the complaint as they are necessary party.

6. ​ The respondent No. 2 – M/s. Purva Oak Private Limited uploaded reply to
the application of Man Realty Limited and opposed the application
contending that the respondent No. 1 – Man Realty Limited has sold the
subject flat to the complainant, has accepted monies from the complainants
and has caused delay in possession of the subject flat. Therefore, the
personal injury is caused to the complainants by the respondent No. 1 only.
The respondent No. 2 is not even aware of the controversy between the
parties. The application to implead M/s. Purva Oak Private Limited has
been moved on 04-01-2025, 4 years after the original complaint was filed
against the respondent No. 1 i.e. Man Realty Limited. The proposed
respondent No. 2 has taken over the project under the provisions of
securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of
security interest Act 2022. Vide the sale certificate dated 07-06-2024 it has
not taken over the liabilities of the respondent No. 1 i.e. Man Realty
Limited. This is not case of voluntary assignment or transfer of the project
by the respondent No. 1 to the proposed respondent No. 2. Section 15 of
the RERA is not attracted in the present case. The proposed respondent No.
2 was not even in the picture when the subject flat was sold by the
respondent No. 1 to the complainant. The respondent No. 1 has pray for
this application before impleading proposed respondent No. 2 so that it
can ran away from the liabilities under the management agreement dated
12-07-2024 whereunder, clause 3 (a) (vi), the respondent has agreed to
solely be responsible for any claims of its buyers like the complainant.

7. ​ According to the proposed respondent No. 2, it is the respondent No. 1
who has violated the RERA, the respondent No. 1 has enjoyed the monies
of the complainants and signed the documents with the complainants and
has privity with the complainant. The respondent No. 1 has breached its
commitment to the complainant. The respondent No. 1 is proper and

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

necessary party to the instant complaint. A co-ordinate bench of this court
in case of Allwyn Cyril Decosta V/s. Mount Mary Builders and Ors. has
held that the party that has taken the monies is responsible for the same.
The cause of action in this case arose much prior to the proposed
respondent No. 2 coming into picture. The liabilities cannot be fastened
upon the proposed respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 is promoter
and necessary party to the captioned complaint and allowing its name to
be deleted from the captioned complaint would basically amount to the
respondent No. 1 being allowed to run away from its liabilities despite its
obvious defaults and violations.

8. ​ The proposed respondent No. 2 was not connected with the subject project
before June 2024 and hence, do not admit to the contents of the para No. 1
to 4 of the application. The proposed respondent No. 2 has taken over the
subject project would not mean that the liabilities of the respondent No. 1
would also be transferred to the proposed respondent No. 2. It is denied
that the respondent No. 2 has taken over all the liabilities of the respondent
No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has concealed the said agreement from this
authority. The respondent No. 1 is proper and necessary party to this
complaint. The application is without merits and deserved to be rejected.

9. ​ I have gone through the complaint uploaded by the complainants. It is
seen that the complainants have uploaded the complaint against the
present applicant i.e. M/s. Man Realty Limited and the same is uploaded
26-03-2021. It is contended in the complaint that respondent i.e. M/s. Man
Realty Limited is the promoter as per section 2 (z)(k) of the RERA and the
registered the agreement for sale dated 05-03-2018 duly executed and
registered by an between the respondent No. 1 and the complainants. The
complainants purchased an apartment bearing No. 2506 along with car
parking space for total consideration of Rs. 1,10,12,400/-. It is submitted on
behalf of the complainants by the advocate that on 13-08-2024, the project
was transferred to the respondent No. 2 and the complainants came to

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

know the said fact on 04-01-2025 when the respondent No. 1 made an
application for deleting the name from the complaint. It is further
submitted on behalf of the complainants that as per Order of MahaRERA
and MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal both the respondent No. 1 and the
proposed respondent No. 2 are necessary parties, and hence the
complainants opposed the application uploaded by the respondent No. 1
i.e. applicant herein for deleting the name of the respondent No. 1 from this
complaint.

10. ​The advocate of the respondent No. 1 i.e. applicant herein has submitted
that the application may be treated as arguments of the respondent No. 1.
The advocate of the respondent No. 2 submitted that in the year 2024 vide
sale certificate dated 07-06-2024 under the SARFAESI Act, proposed
respondent No. 2 has purchased the land and structure of this project. The
proposed respondent No. 2 has not sold any flat to the complainants. The
respondent No. 1 executed a project management agreement with the
proposed respondent No. 2 and in clause 3(a)(vi), the respondent No. 1 has
agreed that it should solely be responsible for the claims of the claimants. It
is not the case of the complainants that the respondent No. 1 is insolvent.
The respondent No. 1 i.e. the applicant is not the co-promoter of the
respondent No. 2. The proposed respondent No. 2 is not a necessary party
as it is money claim. The complainants advocate uploaded written
arguments on MahaRERA website on 31-05-2025 and contended that the
agreement for sale has been executed between the complainants and the
respondent No. 1 i.e. the applicant herein. It is also submitted that there is
violation of the agreement for sale and provisions of the RERA by the
respondent No. 1 i.e., the applicant herein. The advocate of the
complainants relied upon the

JUDGEMENT

of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in
Second Appeal No. 21842 of 2023 Wadhwa Group Housing Private Limited
V/s. Vijay Choksi and Ors. I have gone through para No. 24 of the said


JUDGEMENT

. It is seen that in the present case there is agreement of

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

complainants with the respondent No. 1 i.e. the applicant herein. The
Hon’ble High Court observed that when the claim is raised in respect of
real estate project by the flat purchaser, all the promoters become jointly
liable qua that flat purchasers, irrespective of whether, there is privity of
contract with each of the promoter or not. In the present case, there is
agreement between the complainants and Man Realty Private Limited. The
advocate of the complainants also relied upon the order of Member – 1
MahaRERA dated 03-05-2024 from
complaint No. CC006000000220838
. I
have gone through the same.

11. ​It is not in dispute that the complainants have filed the present complaint
on 26-03-2021 against the present applicant i.e. the respondent No. 1 man
Realty and the agreement was registered between the complainants and
the respondent No. 1 i.e. the applicant herein for purchase of flat No. 2506
and the same is of dated 05-03-2018. It is not in dispute that the project
transferred from the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2 on
13-08-2024 vide sale certificate dated 07-06-2024 under SARFAESI Act and
the name of the respondent No. 2 Purva Oak Private Limited recorded as
promoter and MahaRERA issued registration certificate for project Form C
on 13-08-2024 in favour of the M/s. Purva Oak Private Limited. It is not
denied by the applicant i.e. the respondent No. 1 that the present project
purchased by the respondent Purva Oak Private Limited vide sale
certificate dated 07-06-2024 under the SARFAESI Act. It is not in dispute
that the said project not transferred in favour of the M/s. Purva Oak
Private Limited as per provisions of Section 15 of the RERA Act.

12. ​Considering the fact that the agreement for purchase of the flat was taken
place between the complainants and the applicant i.e. the respondent No. 1
herein and the project transferred in the name of the respondent Purva Oak
Private Limited in the year 2024 and the present complaint is filed by the
complainants in the year 2021 and Purva Oak Private Limited purchased
the project vide sale certificate dated 07-06-2024 under SARFAESI Act.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


Complaint No. CC006000000196509

13. ​Therefore, in my opinion it is not desirable to delete the name of the
applicant – Man Realty Private Limited from this complaint as the
respondent No. 1. Hence, in my considered opinion, this application
deserved to be rejected.

14. ​Hence, I pass following order:-
O R D E R

1. ​ Application is rejected.

2. ​ Cost in cause.

​
​
​
​
​
​
(Ravindra Deshpande)
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Member-II, MahaRERA
Date : 12/09/2025

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.09.12 15:02:07
+05'30'