Comp.CC006000000303335
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000303335

AJIT DNYANDEO NIMSE …COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

2. NAVIN AMARLAL MAKHIJA

3. MANOHAR MOOLCHAND CHHABRIA

4. RUPESH YADAV …RESPONDENTS

In
MahaRERA Project registration No. P52000021082

O R D E R

20. 04.2026
(Date of hearing 01.07.2025. The matter was reserved for order)


Coram:- Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA

Advocate Kulsum Idrissi appeared for the complainants.
Advocate Gopal Nirban appeared for the respondents.

1. ​
The complainants are home buyer and allottees within the meaning of Section
2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act) 2016 (herein after
referred to as the Act) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Herein after
referred to as the RERA) and the respondent is the promoter within the
meaning of section 2(zk) of the Act who has registered project namely “Wise
city, south Block, Phase I, Plot RZ8 Building 1 wing A3” under section 5 of the
said Act bearing
MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52000021082
.

2. ​
On MahaRERA project registration webpage the proposed date of completion
is mentioned as 30.12.2026.

3. ​
The complainant is seeking following reliefs:
A.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to refund the full amount of Rs. 4,21,164/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty-One Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Four Only)
paid by the Complainant till date against the booking of 1BHK Supreme Flat

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp.CC006000000303335
bearing no. 2006, 20th floor, area admeasuring 40.44 Sq. Mtrs carpet area as per
RERA equivalent to 435.29 sq. ft., in the Tower known as “Tulip A3” in the real
estate project known as “Wise City, South Block, Phase I, Plot RZ8, Building 1,
Wing A3” being constructed at Plot Nos. 128/6 and 128/8, situated, lying and
being at Village: Wardoli, Taluka: Panvel, District: Raigad 410206.
B.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs. 3,211/- (Rupees
Three Thousand Two Hundred and Eleven Only) paid by the Complainant
towards taxes.
C.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay interest as per Rule from the date of
cancellation till full refund has been made. The interest calculated till the date of
this complaint is Rs. 29,736/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred
and Thirty-Six Only).
D.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to further pay interest of Rs. 3,499/-
(Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Only) for every
month of delay till the full amount paid by the Complainant is refunded.
E.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- as
compensation towards payment of, hardship, mental agony, caused to the
Complainant.
F.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to not deduct/forfeit any amount as
cancellation fees towards the cancellation of allotment of the said flat.
G.​
To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to restrain from creating any
encumbrance/third-party rights over the Said Flat till full refund has been made.
H.​
Legal Cost.
I.​
And any other or further relief(s)/advice as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit
and proper in the light of the circumstances of the case.

4. ​
The complaint was heard on 01.07.2025 wherein following roznama was
recorded:
“Today, the Complainant is present. The Respondents are present. The advocate
for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant has booked a flat in the
Respondent’s project on 29.01.2022 for the total consideration of Rs. 42,11.639/-.
The Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 4,24,375/- inclusive of tax Rs. 3,211/-.
10% of the consideration amount is paid. The Complainant, through e-mail dated
20th April 2022, requested to cancel the booking i.e. within 82 days of the booking.
It is submitted that on 9th June 2022, the Complainant again requested to the
Respondent for cancellation of the booking. The Responder informed through

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp.CC006000000303335
e-mail that the Respondent has forfeited the entire amount. It is submitted that the
present complaint is filed as per Order 35 of 2022 of MahaRERA, Adv. Gopal
Nirvan, appearing for the Respondents, submitted that there is no agreed date of
possession. The remedy under Section 18 is not available. No email of 28th April
2022 is attached by the Complainant and uploaded the same and same is not
received by the Respondent. It is submitted that Complainants are part in breach,
therefore no relief can be granted, hence they are not entitled for a refund of the
amount. It is submitted that the Respondent sent several letters to the
Complainant to pay the amount, but there is a free charge on behalf of the
Complainant. It is submitted that the forfeiture is valid as per the booking form.
The parties are at liberty to file their written arguments on or before 23.07.2025;
thereafter, the matter is reserved for order”

5. ​
Brief submissions of the complainant are as follows:
A.​
The Complainant agreed to purchase a 1 BHK flat bearing No. 2006 on
the 20th floor in Tower “Tulip A3”, admeasuring 40.44 sq. mtrs. carpet
area (435.29 sq. ft.) for a total consideration of Rs. 42,11,639/- in
Respondent No.1’s project.
B.​
The Complainant paid Rs. 4,24,375/-, inclusive of taxes of Rs. 3,211/-,
towards booking of the said flat, which was acknowledged by the
Respondents vide receipt dated 01.03.2022.
C.​
The Application/Booking Form mentioned RERA Registration Nos.
P52000020812 & P52000021081, which pertain to different phases/wings
and not to “Tulip A3”. This is in violation of Section 11(2) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, rendering the
Respondents liable for penalty under Section 61. Reliance is placed on the
MahaRERA Order dated 06.03.2018 in Secretary, MahaRERA vs. Karrm
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Suo Moto
Complaint No. 08
/2018).
D.​
The complainant booked the flat based on representations by Respondent
No.4 that a subvention loan would be arranged and, failing sanction, the
entire amount would be refunded without forfeiture.
E.​
As the respondents failed to arrange the loan despite repeated
follow‑ups, the complainant sought cancellation and refund. The
complainant requested cancellation and refund of the entire amount vide
emails dated 20.04.2022 and 09.06.2022. The Respondents acknowledged
the request on 10.06.2022 and initiated cancellation.
F.​
Despite this, the Respondents issued reminders and a demand letter
dated 14.07.2022 seeking further payment of Rs. 12,77,129/- and later,

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp.CC006000000303335
vide email dated 09.08.2022, informed the Complainant that the booking
amount stood forfeited.
G.​
The complainant states that forfeiture is illegal, especially when no
Agreement for Sale was executed, and that even otherwise the promoter
cannot forfeit more than 10% of the consideration under RERA. Due to
delay in refund, the Respondents are liable to refund Rs. 4,24,375/- along
with interest @ 9.95%.

6. ​
Brief submissions of the respondent are as follows:
A.​
The respondents submit that the complainant has suppressed material
facts and failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Booking
Application Form by repeatedly defaulting in payment of the balance
consideration. Due to such continuous defaults, the respondents were
constrained to cancel the booking in accordance with the agreed terms.
B.​
Under the booking application form and cost sheet, the complainant had
expressly agreed to make payments of instalments as per the progress of
work and within stipulated timelines. Accordingly, the respondents
issued demand invoices dated 01.03.2022 and 11.05.2022, calling upon the
complainant to pay an amount of rs. 12,77,129/-, which was due and
payable towards the said flat.
C.​
The respondents state that despite repeated follow-ups, reminders,
emails, and correspondence, the complainant failed to clear the
outstanding dues and also did not come forward for execution and
registration of the agreement for sale. Left with no alternative, the
respondents terminated the booking of the said flat and forfeited the
amount in terms of the Booking application form.
D.​
The Respondents therefore submit that the cancellation of the booking
was strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Booking
Application Form and Cost Sheet. Hence, the present complaint is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

7. ​
From the facts of the case and submissions of the parties, issue that needs to be
examined is whether the complainant is entitled to seek reliefs under the Act?

8. ​
Before determining the issue framed at para-no.7 above the following
common observations are noteworthy:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp.CC006000000303335
A.​
The complainant had agreed to purchase Flat No. 2006 in the
Respondent’s project for a total consideration of Rs. 42,11,639/-.
B.​
The respondent has placed on record the booking application form as
documentary evidence evidencing the transaction between the parties.
Upon perusal, it is observed that the date mentioned on the Booking
Form is not clearly legible.
C.​
The complainant sought cancellation of the booking of the said flat and
communicated the same to the respondent vide letter dated 04.08.2022. In
response thereto, the respondent issued a confirmation email stating that
the booking stood cancelled and that the amount paid by the
complainant at the initial stage shall stand forfeited in accordance with
the terms of the booking Form.
D.​
The booking application form specifically provides that in the event the
allottee (complainant) cancels the booking, the promoter (respondent) is
entitled to deduct 10% of the total consideration amount as
“administrative charges.” Further, clause 39 of the booking form
stipulates that in case of delay in payment of instalments beyond a
period of 15 days, the promoter is entitled to cancel the booking and
forfeit the administrative and other applicable charges.
E.​
It is observed from the receipts placed on record that the complainant has
paid an amount of rs. 4,24,375/-, which is decimally more than 10% of
the total consideration amount agreed between the parties under the
booking application form.

9. ​
The complainant has sought refund of the entire amount paid towards initial
consideration along with compensation. However, it is required to be noted
that the booking application form expressly provides that the respondent is
entitled to deduct 10% of the total consideration amount in the event of
cancellation by the allottee. It is deemed that both the complainant and the
respondent have voluntarily signed the said booking application form,
thereby evidencing mutual consent to its terms and conditions. It is therefore
deemed that the complainant had duly read, understood, and accepted the
contractual terms prior to executing the same. Further, it is a well‑settled
principle of law that neither a court nor a statutory authority can alter, vary, or
rewrite the terms of a contract which has been mutually agreed upon by the

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Comp.CC006000000303335
parties. Consequently, no direction can be issued which travels beyond or is
contrary to the express terms of the booking application form in the present
case. Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to deduct the prescribed
percentage of consideration from the total amount actually paid by the
complainant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the issue framed in para. 7
hereinabove is answered in the negative.
O R D E R

10. ​ Therefore, after considering the provisions of the Act, submissions of the
complainants material placed on record, and the observations made, the
Authority passes following order:
A.​
The captioned complaint is dismissed for the reasons more specifically
mentioned herein above.
B.​
The respondent is entitled to deduct the stipulated percentage of the total
consideration amount from the sum actually paid by the complainant,
strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Booking
Application Form.
C.​ No orders as to costs.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Member II, MahaRERA
Date : 20.04.2026

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.04.20 14:41:33
+05'30'