Complaint No. CC006000000396556


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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000396556

Madhura Bhate


...Complainant

Versus

Vijay Citispace Pvt Ltd/ JM financial


... Respondent


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700008755


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

Both the parties are absent.


INTERIM ORDER


(Wednesday, 06th November 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainant above named has filed this complaint before the MahaRERA on
10-08-2023 seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the
entire amount as prescribed under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the
booking of the flat bearing No. 504, 5th Floor, Building No. 5 in the respondent’s
registered project known as “Vijay Enclave” bearing MahaRERA registration No.
P51700008755 located at 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.
However, despite the notice of hearing, both the parties remained absent.


Complaint No. CC006000000396556


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

3. In the present case, the complainant by filing this complaint has approached the
MahaRERA mainly seeking directions to the respondent to refund the entire
amount paid by her.

4. However, during the course of hearing, the MahaRERA has noticed that NCLT
proceeding has been initiated against the respondent - promoter under the
Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.
Hence, the MahaRERA has perused the available record.

5. However, in the present case on bare perusal of the website of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India, the MahaRERA has prima facie noticed that the M/s.
Regency
Ispat
Pvt.
Ltd.
has
filed
Company
Petition
No.
CP
No.
3352/IBC/MB/2019 against the respondent - promoter under Section 7 of the I&B
Code, 2016.

6. From the available record, the MahaRERA has further noticed that on 20-07-2021,
the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an
order in CP No. 3352/IBC/MB/2019 filed by Regency Ispat Pvt. Ltd, i.e., the
Operational Creditor therein, against the respondent promoter herein, thereby
admitting the respondent promoter 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 4 (of the operative part of the said order) 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


Complaint No. CC006000000396556


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

(respondent herein) in respect of which an order of admission into CIRP has been
passed by the Adjudicating Authority, applies to the respondent promoter herein.
Hence institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against
the respondent promoter including execution of any

JUDGMENT

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

8. Hence, the said crucial fact about the appointment of CIRP in respect of the
respondent- promoter’s company cannot be ignored by the MahaRERA.

9. 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 promoter at this stage and hence the present complaint is adjourned
sine die. In the meantime, the complainant may pursue her claim for refund before
the CIRP if she so desires.

10. 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