Complaint No. CC006000000197105


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


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI


Complaint No. CC006000000197105


Mahesh Tiwari


... Complainant/s

Versus

Neptune Developers Limited

... Respondent/s


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700016878


Coram: Shri. Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member – I/MahaRERA

The Complainant appeared in person.
None appeared for the Respondent.


INTERIM ORDER


(Friday, 19th January 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainant above named have filed this online complaint before MahaRERA
on 12-02-2022 mainly seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent refund
along with interest and to withdraw from the project as prescribed under the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘RERA’) registered project known as “Ramrajya - Neptune Udaan B”
bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51700016878 located at Ambivali West,
Village-Kalyan-Dombivali (M Corp.), District - Thane.


Complaint No. CC006000000197105


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

2. Accordingly, this complaint was heard by MahaRERA finally on 21-09-2023 as per
the Standard Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by MahaRERA for
hearing complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued
prior intimation of this hearing and they were also informed to file their additional
written submissions if any. Accordingly, the complainant appeared for the hearing
and made their submissions wherein respondents remained absent. The MahaRERA
heard the submissions of the parties and perused the available records.

3. After hearing the arguments of the complainant, the following Roznama was
recorded in this complaint –
“The complainant is present. The respondent is absent. The complainant has
pointed out that there is a NCLT order in respect of the respondent company. The
complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- as per agreement for sale of
18-07-2018. The complainant wishes to withdraw from the project due to delay
as the project was to be completed in December 2022 as per the agreement for
sale. Therefore, due to slow progress the complainant has filed this complaint
for withdrawal from the project. The MahaRERA would have to examine what
orders have been passed by NCLT as mentioned by the complainant and the
complainant has also pointed out that the respondent promoter has challenged
the order of the NCLT before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the above,
the Registry is directed to verify the facts regarding the respondent company and
the NCLT proceedings. The future course of action in this matter would be
decided once the order of NCLT has been brought on record. Accordingly, this
matter is reserved for orders.”

4. However, despite the specific directions being issued in the hearing held on 21-
09-2023, neither the complainant nor the respondent has uploaded any reply,
rejoinder, or written submission on record of MahaRERA. Hence, the MahaRERA
has perused the available record.


Complaint No. CC006000000197105


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

5. In the present case, the complainant by filing this complaint has approached the
MahaRERA mainly seeking refund of the entire money paid by him along with
interest on account of delay under section 18 of the RERA.

6. However, during the course of hearing held on 21-09-2023, the complainant has
informed the MahaRERA that NCLT proceeding has been initiated against the
respondent promoter under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to
Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Hence, the MahaRERA has perused the
available record.

7. On bare perusal of the website of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
, the MahaRERA has noticed that on 16-07-2021, the Hon’ble National Company
Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order in C.P. No.
3794/IBC/MB/2019 filed by Central Bank of India, i.e., the Financial Creditor
therein against the respondent herein, thereby admitting the respondent herein
into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in accordance with the
provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

8. Thereafter, the respondent has challenged the said order dated 16-07-2021
before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
(NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 624 of 2021 . However, vide an
order dated 10-06-2022 passed by the Hon’ble NCLAT, the said appeal was
dismissed and the order dated 16-07-2021 passed by the NCLT was upheld.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10-06-2022 passed by the Hon’ble
NCLAT, the respondent herein has filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 467/2022 before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the said petition , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India was pleased to pass an order on 04-07-2022 and the same reads
as under:-

“In the meanwhile, Petitioner shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose


Complaint No. CC006000000197105


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

of any of his assets or his legal rights or beneficial interest therein and the
Resolution Professional shall not proceed with filing of the report.”

10. The aforesaid Writ Petition is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Moreover, the order dated 16-07-2021 passed by the NCLT in C.P. No.
3794/IBC/MB/2019 has not yet been set aside.

11. In view thereof, as recorded in the order dated 16-07-2021 passed by the NCLT,
Section 14 of the Code, mandating a moratorium on the institution and
continuation of legal proceedings against a Corporate Debtor in respect of which
an order of admission into CIRP has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority;
applies to the respondent herein.

12. Hence institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against
the respondent including execution of any

JUDGMENT

, decree or order in any court
of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority is prohibited.

13. In view of the above, the MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide this complaint
against the respondent at this stage and hence the present complaint is adjourned
sine die. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach MahaRERA
after final disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the
respondent if need be.

(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA