COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168


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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hybrid hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168

PREMRAJAN KURUP
…COMPLAINANT

VS

1. K. R. REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2. RAM MAKHECHA

3. ANJANA MAKHECHA

4. VIJAY MAKHECHA

5. SIDDHESH TENDULKAR

6. VAKRATUNDA GROUP

7. GODREJ PROPERTIES LTD

8. PIROJSHA GODREJ

…RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700013329

ORDER
(in interim application)

26. 02.2026
(Date of hearing – 09.10.2025)


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

Adv. Sushmita Chalke for the Complainant
Adv. Srushti Pawar for the Respondent no. 1
Adv. Anosh Sequeira for Respondent no. 7
Respondent nos. 2 to 6 and 8 are absent

1. The Respondent no. 7 has filed a miscellaneous application with
respect to deletion of the respondent no. 8 thereby declaring that
respondent no. 8 is not a necessary party to the complaint filed
by the complainant and to dismiss the present complaint for
misjoinder of party.


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168


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

2. It is contention of the respondent/ Applicant no. 7 that the
present
complaint
filed
by
the
complainant
is
false,
misconceived, frivolous, not maintainable and bad in law.

3. It is the contention of the respondent/ Applicant no. 7 that the
Respondent No. 7 was engaged as a Development Manager for
the said Project for a consideration, pursuant to a Development
Management Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “DMA”)
dated 3rd October 2014, executed between Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 7. Under the terms of the DMA, Respondent No.
7 was appointed to render limited services confined to assisting
and supervising the execution and implementation of the layout
project. The responsibility for the delivery of the units remained
exclusively with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 7 was
represented as the Development Manager of the said Project
under the DMA, and such representation was duly disclosed in
all marketing and promotional materials relating to the Project.
The arrayed Respondent No. 8 is a whole time Director of
Respondent No.7 Company and is neither a promoter nor owner
of the said Property. Furthermore, Respondent No.8 is not the
Managing Director of Respondent No.7, as is wrongly portrayed
by the Complainant. Respondent No.8 has no privity with the
Complainant of any nature whatsoever and has had no direct
involvement with the Complainant.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant/ respondent no. 7 that
the Respondent No. 8 has neither executed any agreement or


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168


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

document
with
the
Complainant,
nor
extended
any
representation or assurance to the Complainant, nor engaged in
any communication with the Complainant in relation to the
allotment of any unit in the said Project. In the absence of any
privity of contract between the Complainant and Respondent
No. 8, Respondent No. 8 lacks the requisite locus standi and is
therefore improperly impleaded as a party to the present
Complaint. It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 8 has
not played any role in the allotment to the Complainant. Neither
Respondent No. 8 nor Respondent No. 7 has executed any
agreement with the Complainant.

5. The complainant has submitted reply on the application filed by
the respondent no. 7 and has submitted that Respondent No. 8 is
the Managing Director of Respondent No. 7, namely Godrej
Properties Ltd. The Respondent No. 1, acting through its
Managing Director, entered into a Development Management
Agreement dated 3rd October 2014 with Respondent No. 7,
acting through its Managing Director, for the purposes of
managing and supervising the construction on the project land.
Pursuant to the execution of the said Agreement, Respondent
No. 1 and Respondent No. 7 jointly commenced the construction
of the said Project. In furtherance thereof, Respondent No. 7 and
its Managing Director, i.e., Respondent No. 8, respectively,
rendered substantial contributions and played pivotal roles in
the development and execution of the said Project.


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168


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

6. The complainant has submitted that Respondent No. 7, however,
admits that its role under the relevant arrangements was
confined to providing assistance and supervision in the
execution and implementation of the Layout Project, including
services relating to the delivery of the units. In the course of the
Project, Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8 were jointly
rendering their services to Respondent No. 1. The complainant
maintains that Respondent No. 8 holds a significant position as a
Whole Time Director of Respondent No. 7 company.

7. The Complainant submitted that Respondent No. 8 is a necessary
party to the present proceedings by virtue of his capacity as the
Whole-Time Director of Respondent No. 7. In further
substantiation thereof, the Complainant has annexed documents
obtained from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website,
which unequivocally establish that Respondent No. 8 holds the
office of Whole-Time Director of the said company.

8. In the present case, it is seen that the main contention of the
Respondent is that any complaint under section 31 of the said Act
can be filed for any violation or contravention of the provisions
of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against
any promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be and
since the Respondent No. 8 is not a promoter as per Development
Management Agreement dated 3rd October 2014 and is
mentioned as Managing Director & CEO therein referred to as
the Development Manager, the complaint against them deserves


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168


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

to be dismissed. The Respondent No. 7 was appointed to render
limited services confined to assisting and supervising the
execution and implementation of the layout project.

9. The original Respondent no. 8 has not been directly involved in
the project and the name of the respondent no. 8 has been
reflected in the Development Management Agreement dated 3rd
October 2014 and is mentioned as Managing Director & CEO
therein referred to as the Development Manager. The respondent
no. 7/ applicant has relied upon the precedent

JUDGMENT

passed
by the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Pratap Singh Bohra & Anr.
v/s. M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited & Ors. Appeal no.
AT006000000174671 of 2023, it has been held that the directors
cannot be held liable in personal liability for the duties of the
company. The doctrine of lifting of corporate veil is available in
limited circumstances where the corporate structure has been
instituted to perpetuate a fraud. The directors cannot be fastened
with the liabilities of the company unless they have given
personal guaranteed since company is a separate legal entity
under the Companies Act. I have gone through the Development
Management Agreement dated 3rd October 2014 wherein the
name of the respondent no. 8 is reflected as Development
Manager and has no privity with the Complainant of any nature
whatsoever and has had no direct involvement with the
Complainant. Hence in my opinion, the application for deletion
of the name of Respondent no. 8 stands allowed for the


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000344168


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

abovementioned grounds. The name of the Respondent No. 8 is
hereby deleted.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Date: 26.02.2026


Member-II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.02.26
16:02:06 +05'30'