━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

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


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000375000

ECHJAY INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

…COMPLAINANT
VS

1. R.R. BUILDERS

2. AMIT MAHENDRA RUPAREL

3. GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LTD.


…RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51900003595


INTERIM ORDER


(Discharge application)

June 14, 2024
(Date of hearing – 28.05.2024– matter was reserved for order on limited issue)


Coram: Shri. Ajoy Mehta, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Sharad Bansal a/w Advocate Naushad Engineer Advocate Murtuza
Federal & Advocate Veer Ashar i/B Federa & Co. for the Complainant
Advocate Abir Patel for Respondent No. 1
None present for Respondent No. 2
Advocate Jennifer Michael q/w Deep Morabia i/b Fox Mandal & Associates
L.L.P. for Respondent No. 3

1. The Complainant is an Allottee within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“said Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
“RERA”) and the Respondents are the Promoter/Developers within the
meaning of Section 2 (zk) of the said Act who have registered a Project namely
“RUPAREL VIVANZA” under section 5 of the said Act bearing
MAHARERA
Project Registration No. P51900003595
(hereinafter referred to as the “said
Project”).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

2. On the MahaRERA Project registration webpage the proposed completion date
is 30.11.2021, revised proposed date of completion is 30.06.2025 and extended
date of completion is 31.03.2027.

3. The Complainants are seeking the following reliefs:
QUOTE

1. That this Hon’ble Authority order and declare that the Respondents have breached
their obligation under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of
the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer), Act, 1963 and Section
13(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016;

2. That the Respondents be jointly and severally directed to refund the part consideration
amount of Rs.1,92,96,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety-Two Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand
Only) along with interest at the prevailing rates as specified in the Maharashtra Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) (Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration
of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2017 thereon;

3. That the Respondents be jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of
Rs.5,96,246/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Two Hundred and Forty-Six
Only) paid by the Complainant to the Respondent No. 1 towards the service tax for
purchase of the said Flat, along with interest at the prevailing rates as specified in the
Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Registration of Real Estate
Projects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on
Website) Rules, 2017 thereon.

4. Cost of this complaint.

5. Any other reliefs the Hon’ble Adjudicatory Authority deems just and reasonable in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
UNQUOTE

4. The Complainants had filed an application dated 22.05.2023 seeking discharge
of Respondent No.3 as a Party Respondent from the captioned complaint
(hereinafter referred to as the “said application”). The reliefs under the said
application are as follows:
QUOTE
a. That this Learned Authority be pleased to pass an order thereby declaring that
Respondent No.3 is not a necessary party to the above Complaint and stands
discharged from the above Complaint;
b. That this Learned Authority be pleased to pass an order thereby directing the
Complainant to forthwith delete the name of Respondent No.3 as party Respondent
from the above Complaint;
c. Such other and further orders as this Learned Authority may deem fit in the interest
of justice
UNQUOTE

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

5. The said application was listed for hearing before this Authority on 28.05.2024
wherein the following roznama was passed:
“1.The matter was last adjourned to hear the Respondent No. 1 on the limited issue of
discharging Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 1 states that they would like the
matter to be determined by the Authority based on the facts.

2. The Respondent No. 3 states that an additional argument which was put forth on the
last occasion may also be taken on record namely that, in earlier common orders relating
to different complaints the Respondent No. 3 was deleted the same must be applicable
here.

3. The matters reserved for orders on the limited issue of discharging the Respondent No.
3 from the matter at hand.”

6. The brief facts and submissions of the Applicant (Respondent No.3) with respect
to the said application are as follows:
a. That although the Respondent No.3 was initially a part of the said Project, the
same is not the factual position on the date of filing of the complaint.
b. That the Applicant (Respondent No.3) had initiated Arbitration proceedings
seeking specific performance in accordance with Development agreement and
supplement agreements executed between the Respondent No.1 & 3 with
respect to the said Project before a sole arbitrator (hereinafter referred to as
the “said arbitration proceedings”).
c. Accordingly, a consent award dated 30.09.2021 was passed in the said
arbitration proceedings whereby the liabilities pertaining to the said Project
were absorbed by Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the “said
arbitration award”).
d. As per the RERA registration webpage of the said Project, the Applicant
(Respondent No.3) is shown as “inactive” promoter.
e. That as per orders of MahaRERA in previous complaints in the said Project, it
has been held that Godrej i.e. the Respondent No.3 herein, being the Project
Manager, cannot be held liable for any violation of provisions of the said Act.
f. That the Applicant (Respondent No.3) is not a party to the alleged MOU
entered between the Complainant and Respondent No.1
g. The Applicant (Respondent No.3) has sought to be discharged as a party
Respondent from the captioned complaint.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

7. The brief facts and submissions of the Complainant with respect to the said
application are as follows:
a. The complaint was filed on 28.03.2023.
b. That the said Application has been preferred by the Applicant/ Respondent
No. 3 to wriggle out of its obligations owed to the Complainant.
c. In consonance with the Applicant's status as a promoter, the Applicant has
also filed a declaration in Form B dated 28 July 2017 under Section 4(2)(l) of
the Act read with Rule 3(6) of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) (Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of Real
Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2017
("Rules"). In Form B, the Applicant has on oath declared and provided
undertakings, inter alia, in relation to the time period for completion of the
Project by the Developer by 30 June 2014.
d. Under the Development Management Agreement dated 9 April 2012, the
Applicant has consented to lend its brand name (i.e. 'Godrej') to the Project
and the Project has been launched and/or marketed using the Applicant's
brand name. Accordingly, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 2B
February 2016 between the Complainant and Respondent No. 1 stated (in
Clause 5) that once the Project was officially launched, a fresh allotment letter
would be issued to the Complainant “on a Godrej Properties letterhead and
this agreement will stand null and void".
e. The mere fact that the status of the Applicant is shown as 'Inactive' does not
in any manner imply that the Applicant is no longer a 'promoter' within the
meaning of RERA.
f. The terms of the Consent Award do not exonerate the Applicant from its
statutory and contractual obligations owed to the Complainant. Annexure 4
of the Consent Terms dated 03 September 2021 recognizes the Complainant
as an allottee of the said Project and acknowledges the receipt of the sum of
Rs.1,92,96,000/- from the Complainant. That neither the 'status' of the
Applicant on the MahaRERA portal nor any inter se contractual arrangement

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

between the Applicant and Respondent No. 1 can negate the obligations cast
upon the Applicant under RERA vis-a-vis the Complainant.
g. The said application be rejected.

8. From the facts and the submissions, the only issue that needs to be considered is
Whether the said application can be allowed?

9. Before moving ahead, the following observations are noteworthy:
a. The said arbitration award clearly exonerates Respondent No.3 from any
responsibilities and duties as a Promoter of this Project. The relevant portion
of the said arbitration award is reproduced herein:
“19. AGREED, DECLARED AND CONFIRMED that on execution of this
Consent Award,
i. The Claimant shall cease to be promoter in respect to the project, in all aspects
from the date of this Award and the Respondents undertake to forthwith cause
removal of the name of the Claimant as a Promoter of the said project on the
Maharashtra Real estate Regulatory Authority website or any other place. The
Claimant shall join with the respondents in this exercise as may be necessary by
law.”
b. That the only document executed between the Complainant for allotment of
a unit in the said Project is an MOU dated 28.02.2013 issued by Respondent
No.1.
c. As per MahaRERA project registration details, the Respondent No.3 herein is
shown as “inactive”.

10. In view of the above observations, it is clear that the Respondent No.3 is neither
a Promoter of the said Project for the purpose of this
complaint nor
can be held
liable to fulfil the reliefs sought by the Complainant herein. Thus, the issue at
para No.8 is answered in affirmative and the said application is allowed. The
Applicant (Respondent No.3) is hereby deleted as a party Respondent. The
complaint shall be listed for hearing on merits as per seniority.


Ajoy Mehta
Chairperson, MahaRERA
AJOY
MEHTA
Digitally signed
by AJOY MEHTA
Date: 2024.06.18
13:11:11 +05'30'