Complaint No. CC006000000396377


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000396377

Gulamsarwar Mohd. Arif Hussain Shaikh

...Complainants

Versus

M/s. Wadhwa Rhodesia
(M/s. Wadhwa Buildcon LLP - As pe Project Registration)
... Respondent


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700002499


Coram: Shri. Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member – I/MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Janardan Yadav appeared for the complainant.
Ld. Adv. Paryani Girish appeared for the respondent.


INTERIM ORDER


(Tuesday, 05th November 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainant above named has filed this complaint before the MahaRERA on
22-06-2023 seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the
entire amount paid by him along with interest and compensation as prescribed
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of a flat bearing NO.
208, 2nd floor in phase II in respondent’s registered project known as “Wadhwa
Rhodesia” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51700002499 located at
Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane.

2. This complaint was heard by the MahaRERA today as per the Standard Operating
Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of complaints
through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued prior intimation
of this hearing and they were also informed to file their written submissions if any.


Complaint No. CC006000000396377


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Accordingly, the complainant appeared and made its submissions. However,
despite the notice of hearing, both the parties remained absent.

3. However, during the course of hearing, the respondent informed the MahaRERA
that the NCLT proceeding has been initiated against the respondent - promoter
under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority)
Rules, 2016 bearing C.P. (IB) 2946/MB/2019 and an order dated 28-07-2020 has
been passed by the NCLT whereby CIPR has been appointed.

4. As directed during the course of hearing the Registry of this Bench to verify the
said fact from the available record.

5. In the present case, on bare perusal of the available record, the MahaRERA has
prima facie noticed that the Bank of India has filed a Company Petition C.P. (IB)
2946/MB/2019 against the respondent promoter under Section 7 of the I&B Code,

2016. 6.
The MahaRERA has further noticed that in the said petition, the National
Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order on 28-07-2020 filed
by Bank of India , i.e., the Financial Creditor therein against the respondent herein,
thereby admitting the respondent herein into Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process (CIRP) in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016

7. Further, as recorded in para 8(a) of the said order passed by the NCLT moratorium
has already been ordered against the respondent promoter. In view thereof, as
provided under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which
mandates a moratorium on the institution and continuation of legal proceedings
against a Corporate Debtor (respondent herein) in respect of which an order of
admission into CIRP has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, applies to


Complaint No. CC006000000396377


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

the respondent herein. Hence institution of suits or continuation of pending suits
or proceedings against the respondent including execution of any

JUDGMENT

,
decree, or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority
is prohibited.

8. The complainant appeared for the hearing today, has informed to the
MahaRERA that he is not aware of such NCLT proceeding filed against the
respondent promoter.

9. However, the said crucial fact about the appointment of CIRP in respect of the
respondent’s company cannot be ignored by the MahaRERA.

10. Be that as it may, in the present case, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the
NCLT, the MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide this complaint against the
respondent at this stage and hence the present complaint is adjourned sine die. In
the meantime, the complainant may pursue his claim for refund before the CIRP
if he so desires. Further, the respondent may facilitate the complainant to file the
claim for refund before the IIRP appointed vide the above mentioned proceedings
in the interim.

11. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach MahaRERA after final
disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the respondent, if need
be.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA