BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000197833


M/S. AVISHKAR ENTERPRISES ... COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. ​ S. D. BHALERAO CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

2. ​ M/S. S. D. BHALERAO CONSTRUCTIONS
PRIVATE LIMITED- SANDHYA ... RESPONDENT



MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700005398


Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member – II /MahaRERA.

Adv. Mohit Bhansali appeared for the Complainant.
​
The Respondent no-1 appeared In-person.
Adv. Priyanka Mukane appeared for the respondent no-2.

ORDER
(25.04.2025)

1. ​
The Respondent no 2/2B i.e, Poonamia Builders, has filed an application dated

16. 12.2024 for leave to file a reply in the present matter.
In short facts of the application are as follows.

2. ​
It is contention of the applicant that the Complainant is with Respondent No. 1
and Shri. Sanjay Dattatray Bhalerao is the director of M/S S. D. Bhalerao
Constructions Pvt Ltd. There is a joint venture agreement between M/S S. D.
Bhalerao Constructions Pvt Ltd. and M/S Poonamia Builders for the formation
of AOP by the name of M/S. S. D. Bhalerao Constructions Pvt Ltd (Sandhya).

3. ​
The Respondent no 2/2B i.e, Poonamia Builders, has stated in the application
that Respondent No. 1 is facing numerous Civil, Criminal, as well as economic
offences. It is also stated in the application that M/S. S. D. Bhalerao
Constructions Pvt Ltd Sandhya (AOP) has no contractual or statutory

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

relationship with the Complainant, and the Complainant is trying to misuse the
law by hatching a conspiracy with Respondent No. 1.

4. ​
It is further submitted that, the address of the joint venture AOP is Poonamia
Bhavan, Edulji Road, Tembhi Naka, Thane(W)-400601, and though the
Complainant and Respondent No. 1 are aware of it, they in collusion have
avoided to mention the correct address and their entire plan was to obtain the
order in favour of Complainant without letting M/S Punamia Builders know
about the complaint.

5. ​
The Agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent No. 1 is not as
per the format used for selling other flats as per the joint venture agreement,
and it differs in material particulars. Under the standard format used by Mr.
Ravi Poonamia of Poonamia Builders as authorised signatory is the one as per
RERA and he has made an entire investment in the construction and completed
entire construction of project building and handed over the flats to be given to
the owner and sold 6 flats and has kept to share with M/S. Poonamia Builders,
the 3 flats being bearing no 301, 302 and 401 upon obtaining OC are given on
leave and licence.

6. ​
In the said agreement dated 28.10.2017, there is a false statement made as to
consideration, and in fact, no consideration has been paid thereunder to joint
venture party M/S. Poonamia Builders and even to Respondent No. 1. In the
said agreement there is a mention on page no 8 of the Joint venture agreement
dated 23.12.2015 between M/S Poonamia Builders, a partnership firm, and
M/S. S. D. Bhalerao Construction Pvt. Ltd and it is specifically mentioned in the
said agreement that any consideration is payable only on favour of M/S S.D
Bhalerao Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Sandhya. It is also mentioned in the said
agreement itself that the purchaser has given inspection of all the documents in
relation to the said project, which clearly means that, Complainant was aware of
the Joint venture agreement and terms thereof. No prudent man will enter into
such an agreement, once such a person is aware of joint venture agreement,
which clearly prohibits Respondent no-1 to book or sale any flats in the said

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

project.

7. ​
According to the applicant, the applicant was not served with a copy of
complaint, and they came to know this complaint in August 2024, and learned
that Respondent No. 1 and S.D. Bhalerao appeared in the matter and filed a
say, but they did not inform the applicant and disclosed said fact to the
Respondent 2/2B, and therefore they could not file the say. These applicants
were not having login and password for their project in MahaRERA website as
it was available only with Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 was not
agreeable to share the same to enable the applicant to file the reply and the
Applicant has to file the complaint before the police and due to all these factors
the say could not be filed but as soon as this applicant came to know they have
taken steps immediately and they have filed their reply. In order to show the
bonafide of the applicants, they are submitting written arguments on record to
avoid any delay. Hence, it is necessary to allow the present application.

8. ​
The other side i.e. Complainant, has filed a reply and resisted the present
application it is the contention of the Complainant that there is no explanation
as to the delay in filing present written statement. As per the record, the
complaint is duly served upon the Respondents in the year 2021, and since the
same is uploaded on the portal, the service part is fully complied without there
being any ambiguity of the service. The applicant has completely omitted the
allotment letter dated 12.10.2015, which is much prior to the so-called right of
the applicant. Execution of the agreement dated 28.10.2017 is a public document
within the knowledge of the Respondents.

9. ​
The project in question is registered with this authority in August 2017, and
same registered on basis of a registered development agreement dated

31. 12.2014 between the leasehold owners of the Sandhya Bungalow, lying and
being at survey no 41, 42A, Naupada, Thane (West). No requisite agreement for
sale is placed on record. As per the contention of the applicants, the said AOP is
not even registered. The name of the applicants is not reflected as the promoter.
It is falsely stated in the application that the copy of the complaint was not

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

served, and Punamia Builders came to know about the present complaint in the
month of August 2024. The roznama dated 29.07.2024 of this authority, which is
self-explanatory regarding the service of a copy of the complaint. It is evident
from said roznama that Mr. Punamia was personally present since he has
knowledge about the date and proceedings prior to August 2024.

10. ​
The present complaint is filed in the year 2021 and duly served upon the
Respondent at the given address. To overcome and deny the service and its
knowledge, the applicant herein again made a false statement that Respondent
No. 1 did not give a login and password for their project in the MahaRERA
website. On one hand applicant claims to have complete control of the project,
claims to retain the right of sale, and yet states that he had no login ID and
password. Appearance of the Mr. Rakesh Punamia prior to August 2024 negates
the false statement of the applicant in the application. Mr. Rakesh Punamia had
knowledge about pending proceeding and its dates, accordingly, appeared with
Mr. S.D. Bhalerao before this authority prior to August 2024, on that day matter
was fully argued. Mr. Punamia and Mr. Bhalerao sort time stating that their
advocate is not available for argument. On 29.07.2024, there is no allegation of
non-supply of a copy of the complaint, but a positive statement that they had
already engaged an advocate, and the advocate is not available. On perusal of
roznama dated 14.02.2024, further suggest that the Respondents responded in
person present and specific two weeks time is granted to file a reply. Once that
time is over, there is no question to take on record the reply of the Respondent,
that too after period of three years from the filing of the complaint. The
applicant also attempted to mislead stating that the address of the joint venture
is at Punamia Bhavan, Edulji Road, Tembhi Naka, Thane(W)-400601, and
contended that purposely, the Complainant has not inserted the said address in
the complaint. The reply of the applicant dated 17.10.2019 clearly confirms that
the knowledge the applicant of those agreements in the year itself. The
Respondent in collusion now claims to have filed a police complaint in year
2024 as an eye-wash and to save their skin and nothing else.

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

11. ​
No documents placed on record by the applicant which suggests that S.D.
Bhalerao Construction Pvt. Ltd. i.e, Respondent No. 1 did not have any rights to
develop and sale the flats as per the development agreement dated 31.12.2014.
The first-time joint venture agreement is attempted to be placed in record via
present written statement.

12. ​
According to the Complainant without prejudice to the above contention of
Complainant on bare perusal of the copy of application it can be seen that vide
para 1 to 10 of the application the applicant made an attempt to demonstrate
that the entire transaction involved in the present complaint is a transaction of
fraud commission in collusion between Respondent No-1 and Complainant.
The authority of Respondent No. 1 and the legal sanctity of the agreement is
also touched. The applicant has further attempted to show that their address is
different, and without any login Id, they were helpless. On a bare perusal of the
website of this authority, the correspondence address shows as reflected in the
complaint. And as such, it is not open for the applicant to make any grievance
for the same. The application filed by the applicant is not even supported by
so-called AOP, JV, namely the Respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 has taken a
completely different stand than to allegation made in the present application
under the reply. The application is without any substance and explanation
towards enormous delay of three years to file the written statement hence, the
application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.

13. ​
Heard an advocate of both parties. The advocate of the applicant submitted the
written arguments. I have gone through the same. The advocate of the
Complainant submitted that the Complainant has filed the present complaint in
the year 2021, the present application is on behalf of Respondent no 2/2B. The
Respondent No 2/2B is an association of persons. The Respondent No. 2/2B not
filed the present application on its behalf. The address of S.D Bhalerao is given
and on the same address, all the Respondents are served. It is submitted that
one the partners says that he does not have a login Id and password. The
project is registered in the year 2018, since that time they were selling the flat,

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

no reason is mentioned as to why there is a delay of more than three years for
filing the reply. Hence, the advocate for the Complainant submitted that the
application may be rejected; he also submitted that he has uploaded written
arguments on the MahaRERA website. I have also gone through the written
arguments of the Complainant. I have also gone through the complaint, it is
seen that the Complainant has filed the present complaint against two
Respondents, i.e. S.D. Bhalerao Construction Pvt. Ltd and M/S. S.D. Bhalerao
Construction Pvt. Ltd (Sandhya). The Complainant has filed the present
complaint requesting to direct the Respondent to hand over the vacant and
peaceful possession of flat no 301 along with car parking and for other reliefs
mentioned in the complaint.

14. ​
It is the contention of the applicant i.e Respondent no-2 that, this Respondent is
not served with the copy of complaint and they came to know of this complaint
in August 2024 and also learned that S.D Bhalerao had appeared in the matter
and filed Say but Respondent no-1 did not inform the said fact to this
Respondent No-2 and therefore they could not file the Reply and when the
Respondent No-2 came to know confronted Respondent no-1 then Respondent
No-1 provided copy of complaint. It is also contended that Respondent No-2
was not having login and passwords for their project on the MahaRERA
website and the same was available to Respondent No. 1 only, and Respondent
No. 1 was not agreeable to share the same to enable Respondent No. 2 to file the
reply. And due to said fact, the Respondent no-2 could not file a reply. It is
contended in the application that as soon as Respondent No. 2 came to know
about the complaint, Respondent no-2 filed its reply immediately.

15. ​
No doubt, the Complainant has opposed this application, contending that no
proper and admissible explanation is given by the Respondent No. 2 for filing
the reply after three years of filing the complaint. According to the
Complainant, the Respondent no.2 falsely stated that Respondent no.1 did not
give the login ID and passwords for his project on the MahaRERA website. The
Complainant requested for the rejection of the application. I have gone through

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

the MahaRERA website it is seen that Respondent no.2 has already uploaded a
reply to the complaint uploaded by the Complainant. In my considered
opinion, in order to decide the complaint on merits at once for all and to avoid
multiplicity of the litigation and in the interest of justice by imposing cost of Rs.
3000/- payable to the Complainant, the reply uploaded by Respondent No.2 is
required to be taken on record. Hence, I pass the following order.

ORDER

1. ​ The application is allowed on subject payment of the cost of Rs. 3000/-
payable to the Complainant within 15 days from this order.

2. ​ The reply of Respondent no-2 be taken on record.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Member – II , MahaRERA
Date :- 25.04.2025

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.04.25 17:55:44
+05'30'