Complaint No. CC006000000209900


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


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI


Complaint No. CC006000000209900

Venkatesh Iyer


... Complainant

Versus

Rite Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Edelweiss Broking Limited


... Respondents

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800006893


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

Ld. Adv. Revati Desai appeared for the complainant.
None appeared for the respondents.


INTERIM ORDER


(Monday, 11th March 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainant above named has filed this online complaint before the
MahaRERA on 07-02-2022, mainly seeking reliefs from MahaRERA against
the respondent - promoter to refund the entire consideration amount paid by
him along with interest and compensation as prescribed under the provisions
of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of the flat no. 1503 on 15th floor in the
respondent’s registered project known as “Rite Skyluxe” bearing MahaRERA
registration No. P51800006893 located at Chembur, Mumbai.

2. This complaint was heard by the MahaRERA on 10-01-2024 as per the Standard
Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of
complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued
prior intimation of this hearing and they were also informed to file their
written submissions if any. Accordingly, the complainant appeared and made
his submissions. However, despite the notice of hearing, the respondent


Complaint No. CC006000000209900


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

remained absent. The MahaRERA heard the arguments of the complainant and
also perused the available records.

3. After hearing the arguments of the complainant, the following roznama was
recorded in this complaint:-
“The complainants are present. The respondent is absent.
As mentioned in the previous hearing, the order of NCLT dated 25-08-2023 is
in operation and IRP has been appointed vide the said order. Therefore, it
appears that moratorium under section 14 of the I & B code is enforced and
MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide this complaint against the respondent
at this stage. However, the complainants are free to file their claims before
the CIRP and the respondent may facilitate the complainants for the same.
In view of the above, the present complaints need to be adjourned sine die.
Therefore, these matters are reserved for orders accordingly.”

4. In the present case, during the course of hearings, the MahaRERA has noticed
that the NCLT proceedings were initiated against the respondent no. 1’s
company viz M/s. Rite Developers Pvt Ltd , which is implementing this
project and the CIRP has been appointed.

5. Further, from the available record, the MahaRERA has also noticed that on 25-
08-2023, the National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai has passed an order in
CP (IB) No.1023/MB-IV/2022 filed by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance
Limited, i.e., the Financial Creditor therein against the respondent no. 1
herein, thereby admitting the respondent no. 1 herein into Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in accordance with the provisions of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

6. Thereafter, the aforesaid order dated 25-08-2023 passed by the NCLT was


Complaint No. CC006000000209900


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

challenged before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi (NCLAT) by one of the directors of the respondent no. 1 company
in Company Appeal No. (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1198 of 2023 and 1199 of 2023.
In the said appeals the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi (NCLAT) was pleased to pass an order on 6-11-2023 and dismissed
the said appeals and upheld the aforesaid order dated 25-08-2023 passed by
the NCLT.

7. In view thereof, 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 no.1 herein.

8. Hence institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings
against the respondent no.1 including execution of any

JUDGMENT

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

9. In view of the above, the MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide this complaint
against the respondent no. 1 at this stage and hence the present complaint is
adjourned sine die.

10. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach MahaRERA after
final disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the
respondent no. 1 if need be.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA