CC006000000395984

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference
as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000395984


SIDDHESH V KADAM …COMPLAINANT
Vs

PIROJSHAH GODREJ …RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700010303

Order on amendment application

03. 06.2026
(Date of Hearing: 19 .11 .2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Complainant in person
Advocate Ranjeev for Respondent

1. The Complainant has filed an amended application seeking to implead Godrej
Properties Ltd. as a Respondent.

2. It is the contention of the Complainant that, by amendment application dated

13. 11.2025, he seeks substitution of Mr. Pirojshah Godrej with Godrej
Properties Ltd. as Respondent, contending that Mr. Pirojshah Godrej is not the
registered promoter of the project and was inadvertently impleaded in the
original complaint.

3. The Complainant further submits that the MahaRERA registration records
and the Order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Regulatory Case Nos. 228, 229, 230
and 231 of 2024 identify Godrej Properties Ltd. as the registered promoter of
the project. It is contended that all marketing, sale negotiations, collections,

CC006000000395984

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

construction updates and possession-related commitments were undertaken
by Godrej Properties Ltd., which also advertised the project as its own on its
website.

4. The Respondent has filed a reply and contested the amendment application.

5. It is contention of the Respondent that It is the contention of the Respondent
that the amendment application is not maintainable in law and is liable to be
dismissed in limine. It is submitted that the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 does not contain any provision empowering this
Authority to permit amendment or substitution of parties in the manner
sought by the Complainant. According to the Respondent, the application
does not disclose any statutory provision under which it has been preferred
and is a deliberate attempt to reframe the case and cure deficiencies in the
original complaint.

6. The Respondent further contends that, as stated in the additional affidavit
dated 30.07.2025, the promoter of the subject project was Modella Textile
Industries Ltd., whereas Godrej Properties Ltd. was engaged only as a
Development Manager and had no status as promoter. It is submitted that
Modella had sought deregistration of the project before this Authority and
that notice inviting objections was issued, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the
Order dated 06.08.2024. The Respondent states that Godrej Properties Ltd.,
along with six others, objected to the proposed deregistration. It is therefore
contended that Modella was the proper and necessary party to the present
proceedings and that neither the Respondent nor Godrej Properties Ltd. can
be held liable in relation to the project.

7. It is further contended that the Complainant was aware of the CIRP
proceedings against Modella and was informed by email dated 27.08.2022 to
lodge his claim before the IRP, but failed to do so. The Respondent submits
that despite being aware that Modella was the promoter, the Complainant

CC006000000395984

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

deliberately omitted to implead it and has now sought to implead Godrej
Properties Ltd., which was merely appointed as Development Manager under
the Development Management Agreement dated 13.09.2017. It is further
submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 06.08.2024 deregistering the
project, this Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The
Respondent therefore prays that the complaint and amendment application be
dismissed with exemplary costs.

8. I have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material
placed on record. The amendment sought by the Complainant is limited to
substitution of Mr. Pirojshah Godrej with Godrej Properties Ltd. as a
Respondent. The Complainant has contended that Mr. Pirojshah Godrej was
inadvertently impleaded and that Godrej Properties Ltd. is the entity reflected
in the MahaRERA registration records and referred to in the Order dated

06. 08.2024 passed in Regulatory Case Nos. 228, 229, 230 and 231 of 2024. The
proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the complaint or introduce a
new cause of action but is intended to bring on record the entity against whom
the allegations are sought to be pursued.

9. The objections raised by the Respondent regarding maintainability of the
complaint, status of Godrej Properties Ltd. as a Development Manager, the
role of Modella Textile Industries Ltd. as promoter, CIRP proceedings,
deregistration of the project and jurisdiction of this Authority pertain to the
merits of the dispute and can be considered at the stage of adjudication of the
complaint. At this stage, the Authority is only required to examine whether
the proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the
dispute. In the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the amendment
sought is necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the issues
involved.

10. In view of the above, the application amendment deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the following order is passed:


CC006000000395984

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

O R D E R
A. The Application is allowed.

B. The Complainant is allowed to amend the complaint within four corners of
the Application.

C. The Complainant is directed to upload the amended new complaint on the
MahaRERA website within 15 days from this order.


Date:03.06.2026


Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARA
O DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.06.03
17:07:37 +05'30'