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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Hearing held through hybrid mode



COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000395554

VERNELL PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED NARESH JAIN
…COMPLAINANT/S

VS.
ACME METAL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
…RESPONDENT/S


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800004746


INTERIM ORDER


October 09th, 2025
(Date of hearing – 03.09.2025 matter was reserved for

INTERIM ORDER

)


Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Monil Mandavia appeared for the Complainant.
Advocate Aliabbas Delhiwala appeared for the Respondent.

1. The complainant is a home buyer and an allottee within the meaning of Section 2(d)
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“The Act”) of the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority (“RERA”) and the respondent is the promoter within
the meaning of Section 2 (zk) of the said Act who has registered the Project namely
“SHATRUNJAY PLAZA” under Section 5 of the said Act bearing
MAHARERA
Project Registration No. P51800004746
(“The Project”).

2. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage, the proposed date of completion of
the project is 31.12.2022, the revised proposed date of completion is 30.12.2024. The
said project received the occupation certificate on 06.09.2023 from the Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation.

3. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs:
a)
An

INTERIM ORDER

restricting the promoter to deliver the possession of the part of the
suit property to M/s ARVEE w.r.t the agreement for sale dated 25th October 2023.
b)
An

INTERIM ORDER

restricting the promoter to create any further third-party interest in
the concerned property till the compliant is completely adjudicated.

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

c)
Any other relief which the Authority deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

4. The complaint was heard on 03.09.2025 and the following roznama was recorded by
this Authority:
“Heard both parties on the interim application. Parties are at liberty to file written
submissions by 10.09.2025. Matter will be reserved for orders on the interim application from

11. 09.2025.”

5. The brief facts in the captioned complaint are as follows:
Date of
Filing
Office No.
Date of
AFS
Date of
Possession
Total
Consideration
Amount
Paid
Reliefs Sought

06. 05.2023
201,
202,
207
(As per
submission
of the
complainant)

05. 05.2022
(MOU)
Not
Mentioned
6,12,00,000/-
2,00,00,000/-
Restrain respondent
from handing over
possession to M/s
ARVEE or creating
third-party rights till
final adjudication.

6. The brief submissions of the complainant are as follows:
A.
The complainant has filed the present interim application seeking an order
restraining the respondents from handing over possession of the said property
office portion to M/s ARVEE, preventing the creation of any further third-party
rights in the property, and granting such other relief as the Authority may deem
appropriate.
B.
That, the complainant had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to
purchase commercial premises on the second floor, specifically Offices Nos.
201, 202, and 207, aggregating to approximately 3,093 sq. ft., for a total
consideration of Rs. 6.12 crores. The complainant states that it had paid Rs. 2
crores upfront, exceeding 10% of the total consideration. However, the
agreement for sale was allegedly never registered.
C.
The complainant further states that despite a legal notice dated February

25. 02.2023, requesting transfer of the property and delivery of possession, the

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

respondent did not comply and instead issued a termination notice on April 3,

2023. Allegedly, the respondent later deposited Rs. 2 crores into the
complainant’s account in 11 to 13 November 2023 without prior notice, and also
began changing the use of the property, indicating an intention to create third-
party rights and deprive the complainant of its interest.
D.
The complainant also states that the respondent executed an agreement for sale
on 25.10.2023, in favour of M/s ARVEE for Office No. 201B (1,275 sq. ft.) along
with a car parking space, for Rs. 2.16 crores. This agreement was registered on

07. 10.2024, despite the ongoing dispute, without the complainant’s consent,
thereby creating third-party rights over the disputed property.
E.
That, the complainant seeks an

INTERIM ORDER

restraining the respondent from
delivering possession of the disputed office to M/s ARVEE, preventing creation
of any further third-party rights, and granting any other relief deemed
appropriate by the Authority.

7. The brief submissions of the respondent are as follows:
A.
The respondents allege that the complainant has breached several terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 05.05.2022. They contend that
the MOU was in substance a money-lending arrangement rather than a proper
agreement for the sale of property. The respondents further submit that no
specific area was ever allocated to the complainant, and that no Letter of
Allotment was issued as required under Clause 2 of the MOU.
B.
The respondents state that under the MOU, the complainant was required to
pay Rs. 6.12 crores, with Rs. 1 crore upfront in May 2022 and the balance within
four months after respondents provided clear and marketable title and the
complainant secured a loan. The respondents submit that they obtained the
necessary No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the mortgagees within two
months by 11.07.2022 and informed the complainant on 03.08. 2022 However,
the complainant failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period,
which the respondents claim amounts to a fundamental breach of the MOU.

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

C.
The respondents further submit that they had the right to unilaterally terminate
the MOU, which they exercised due to the complainant’s non-performance and
breach of payment terms. They refer to the termination notice dated 03.04.2023,
and contend that the complainant suppressed relevant facts, including pre-
termination correspondence, and has not acted with clean hands.
D.
Further, the respondents present documents regarding other parties—Mr.
Ankit Bordia, Mrs. Surbhi Bordia, and Mr. Jasmit Gandhi—who had entered
into MOUs for portions of the second floor of the said project but subsequently
cancelled their agreements and received refunds with compensation. These
instances, the respondents submit, demonstrate that their dealings with the
complainant relate to a financial arrangement rather than a completed property
transfer.
E.
The respondents also rely on evidence, including whatsapp messages showing
attempts to resolve the payment schedule and copies of NOCs, to support their
position. They submit that the complainant is not entitled to any relief or
specific performance, as it has not been ready or willing to fulfil its contractual
obligations.

8. From the facts and submissions of the complainant and the respondent, the issue that
needs to be examined is whether the complainants are entitled to any interim relief as
claimed by them under the said Act?

9. Before determining the issue at para no. 8, the following observations are
noteworthy:
A.
It is observed that the said project has received an occupation certificate dated

06. 09.2023. The
complainant has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) dated 05.05.2022 with the respondent for purchase of
commercial premises on the second floor of the said project for approximately
3,093 sq. ft. of carpet area, along with three parking spaces, for a total
consideration of Rs. 6.12 crores. The said amount included society formation
charges, legal charges, electric connection and meter charges, and other

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

incidental costs and taxes. It is also observed that although the respondent
contends that the MOU is unregistered and unnotarized, the document on
record bears the signatures and stamps of both parties, indicating mutual
consent and acknowledgement of the terms therein.
B.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
by 20.05.2022, which constitutes more than 10% of the total consideration.
Therefore, the complainant alleges that despite the said payment, the
respondent failed to execute and register the agreement for sale and later
attempted to create third-party interests in the same property, thereby violating
the terms of the MOU.
C.
It is also noted that, as per clause 2 of the MOU, the respondent was required
to issue a payment acknowledgment and a letter of allotment immediately
upon receipt of the advance payment. However, the respondent has not issued
the letter of allotment to the complainant till date.
D.
It is observed that the MOU records the respondent’s obligation to obtain No
Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the mortgagees and to secure the
occupation certificate, after which the complainant was to pay the balance
consideration by availing a loan. It is further on record that the respondent had
mortgaged an area admeasuring 1,276 sq. ft. carpet on the second floor and also
obtained NOC from the mortgagee and communicated the same to the
complainant on 03.08.2022.
E.
It is further observed that the complainant has placed on record a legal notice
dated 25.02.2023 calling upon the respondent to transfer the property and hand
over possession. In reply, the respondent issued a termination notice dated

03. 04.2023, stating that the required NOCs had been obtained and
communicated to the complainant on 03.08.2022. However, the complainant
failed to make the balance payment of Rs. 4,12,00,000 within the stipulated time,
which, according to the respondent, amounts to a fundamental breach of the
MOU.
F.
It is noted that, the respondent has argued that the MOU was only a financial
arrangement and not a concluded agreement for sale, and that it was validly

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

terminated due to the complainant’s failure to make further payments.
However, the respondent has not produced any documentary evidence, such
as demand letters or reminders, to show that any request for payment was
made to the complainant before issuing the termination notice. In the absence
of such evidence, it appears that the termination notice was an afterthought,
issued only after the complainant’s notice seeking transfer of the property and
possession.
G.
It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of these proceedings, the
respondents, while outwardly proposing conciliatory terms for registration and
transfer of the property, unilaterally deposited Rs. 2 crores into the
complainant’s account between 11th and 13th November 2023 without prior
intimation to the complainant or this Authority.
H.
It is also noted that respondents created a third-party interest in a portion of the
property by executing an agreement for sale dated 25.10.2023 in favour of M/s
ARVEE, a partnership firm. Through this agreement, the respondents agreed to
sell Office No. 201B, admeasuring 1,275 sq. ft. of carpet area, along with one car
parking space for a consideration of Rs. 2.16 crores in the said project,
representing that the property was free from all encumbrances.

10. While the merits of the case are yet to be considered, it is apparent that the
complainant would suffer irreparable harm if the respondent is allowed to deliver
possession to M/s ARVEE, create further third-party rights, or take any action
affecting the status of the disputed property during the pendency of this application.

11. Having regard to the facts, submissions, and documents on record, the Authority
finds that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the complainant. Accordingly,
the respondent is restrained from delivering possession to M/s ARVEE and creating
any further third-party rights, transferring possession, or taking any coercive action
in respect of the subject property until further orders of this Authority.

12. Thus, based on the observations made herein above the issue at paragraph no. 8 is
answered in affirmative.

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

13. The captioned complaints are adjourned for hearing on 28.10.2025 wherein all parties
are directed to remain present.


Manoj Saunik
Chairperson, MahaRERA


MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed by
MANOJ SAUNIK
Date: 2025.10.09
15:38:43 +05'30'