Complaint No. CC006000000396998


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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000396998

MDP Partners

(Mr. Paranjape )


...Complainant

Versus

Avarsekar Realty Pvt Ltd


... Respondents


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51900002867


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

Ld. Adv. Tushar Kadam appeared for the complainant.
None appeared for the respondent.


INTERIM ORDER


(Wednesday, 30th October 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 upload the
project related information / documents as prescribed under the provisions of
sections 4 and 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the respondent’s registered project
known as “Shristi Sea View” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51900002867
located at Mumbai.

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


Complaint No. CC006000000396998


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

of this hearing and they were also informed to file their written submissions if any.
Accordingly, the complainant appeared and made its submissions. However,
despite the notice of hearing, both the parties remained absent.

3. In the present case, the complainant by filing this complaint has approached the
MahaRERA mainly seeking directions to upload the project relevant information
on record of MahaRERA under sections 4 and 11 of the RERA. Further, the
complainant in this complaint has also sought common sort of reliefs.

4. Be that as it may, in the present case, 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, on bare perusal of the website of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of
India, the MahaRERA has prima facie noticed that the M/s. SREI Equipment
Finance Limited has filed Company Petition No. CP (IB) No. 712/MB/2023 against
the respondent promoter under Section 7 of the I&B Code, 2016.

6. The MahaRERA has further noticed that on 29-02- 2024, the Hon’ble National
Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an order in CP (IB) No. CP
(IB) No. 712/MB/2023 filed by M/s. SREI Equipment Finance Limited , 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 (d) 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


Complaint No. CC006000000396998


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

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
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. However, although the complainant appeared ( through his advocate ) for the
hearing today, he has not denied the said fact about the 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.

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