━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

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


COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000570811

1. VIKAS RATHEE

2. JUHI VIKAS RATHEE

…COMPLAINANTS

VS

1. PASHMINA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2. INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED

…RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800008883


INTERIM ORDER


November 13th, 2025
(Date of hearing – 13.10.2025 matter was reserved for order)


Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Aditya Ajgaonkar present for the complainants.
Advocate Anwar Landge present for respondents.

1. The complainants are home buyer and allottees within the meaning of section 2(d) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
“RERA”) and the respondent is the promoter within the meaning of section 2 (zk) of
the said Act who has registered the project namely “PASHMINA LOTUS” under
section 5 of the said Act bearing
MAHARERA project registration No. P51800008883

(hereinafter referred to as the “project”).

2. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage the proposed date of completion is
mentioned as 30.09.2016 and the revised date of completion is mentioned as

30. 12.2021. The said project has not received occupancy certificate till date.

3. The complainants are seeking the following reliefs:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

i.
That this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to allow the Complainants to withdraw from
the said Project.
ii.
That this Hon’ble Authority as per Section 18 of the Maharashtra Real Estate
Regulatory Act, 2016 may be pleased to direct and order the Respondent No. 1, its
directors, its servants, agents and anyone claiming through them or under them to
refund an amount of Rs. 41,38,058/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand
and Fifty-Eight Only) paid by the Complainants to the Respondents along with the
interest at the prescribed rate of the prevailing MCLR + 2 percent as prescribed under
the provisions of the RERA from the date of each payment till actual repayment and/or
realization.
iii.
That, this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to direct and order the Respondent No.1
to pay the entire loan outstanding of the Respondent No. 2 along with interest as
accrued on the said outstanding amount to the Complainants from the date of
payments by the Respondent No. 2 till actual repayment and/or realization, so that
the same can be repaid by the Complainants to the Respondent No. 2
iv.
That the Hon’ble Authority be directed to pay to the Complainants the legal expenses
at actuals and costs.
v.
For such other order and direction as this Hon’ble Authority deems fit.

4. The captioned complaint was heard on 13.10.2025 wherein the following roznama
was recorded by this Authority:
“Heard both parties on the aspect of maintainability. The matter is reserved for order on the
issue of maintainability. The matter stands adjourned to 15.12.2025”

5. The brief submissions by the respondents in their dismissal application are as
follows:
A.
The respondent no.1 submits that present complaint is misconceived, false, and
filed with ulterior motives to misuse the provisions of the Act. It is contended
that the complaint is vexatious and not maintainable and therefore deserves to
be dismissed with exemplary costs.
B.
The respondent no.1 relies on the earlier order of the Authority dated 07.01.2020
passed in Bhagwan Wadhwani vs. Pashmina Realty Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the same
project “Pashmina Lotus”, wherein the Authority held that an allottee who has
consented to shift to the alternate project is not entitled to seek refund. It is
submitted that the facts of the present case are identical and, hence, the
complaint is not maintainable.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

C.
The respondent no.1 submits that the complaint pertains to the erstwhile project
“Pashmina Lotus”, in which the complainants are no longer allottees, as they
had exercised the option to shift to the alternate project.
D.
It is further submitted that the complainants had voluntarily given consent,
both by email and personally, to shift their booking to the respondent’s
alternate project “Lake Riviera”. The said consent was duly acted upon by the
respondent, who obtained revised sanctions and registered the new project
accordingly. Hence, the cause of action in relation to the erstwhile project does
not survive.
E.
The respondent no. 1 submits that the project “Pashmina Lotus” was
abandoned around 2017 due to reasons beyond its control. Subsequently, most
allottees, including the present complainants, consented to transfer their
bookings to “Lake Riviera”.
F.
The respondent no. 1 further states that the agreement for sale dated 08.11.2013,
relied upon by the complainants, pertained to the erstwhile project, which stood
novated by subsequent conduct and correspondence. Having accepted the
alternate arrangement, the complainants cannot now seek refund and interest
after a lapse of several years.
G.
It is stated that although there was no formal mechanism for deregistration of
projects at the relevant time, the respondent has uploaded a self-declaration
dated 29.06.2021 on the MahaRERA portal.
H.
The respondent no. 1 submits that the complainants have failed to produce any
documentary proof of the alleged loan transaction with respondent no. 2.
Further, respondent no. 1 was not a party to such transaction and cannot be
held liable for obligations arising from third-party financial arrangements.
Recovery of such loan amounts, being civil in nature, falls outside the
jurisdiction of the Authority.

6. The brief submissions of the complainants on the dismissal application are as follows:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

A.
That the application for dismissal is misconceived, devoid of merit, and merely
an attempt to delay the proceedings and avoid refunding the legitimate dues of
the complainants.
B.
The complainants state that they had booked flat no. 802 in the project
“Pashmina Lotus” and an agreement for sale dated 08.11.2013 was executed,
and the complainants made payments aggregating to Rs.41,38,058/-. Despite
repeated assurances, the respondent no. 1 failed to hand over possession within
the agreed timeline. Consequently, the complainants exercised their right to
withdraw from the project and seek refund along with interest under section 18
of the Act.
C.
It is submitted that the respondent’s plea of non-maintainability on the basis of
the order in Bhagwan Wadhwani vs. Pashmina Realty Pvt. Ltd. is wholly
misplaced, as the facts of the said case are not applicable in the present
complaint. Further the complainants specifically declined any alternate
allotment in the “Lake Riviera” project, and the proposal to shift was expressly
rejected through various email correspondences dated 15.02.2016, 26.04.2016,

06. 12.2016, and 10.05.2017.
D.
The respondent through a letter dated 24.06.2019 admits cancellation of flat no.
802 and an undertaking to refund the amounts paid by the complainants, as
well as dues payable to the respondent no.2. Despite this, no refund has been
made.
E.
The complainants deny that the matter relates to “loan recovery” or falls within
civil court jurisdiction, stating that the funds disbursed by the respondent no.2
(lender) were towards consideration of the flat, and not as a loan to the
respondent no. 1.

7. From the facts and submissions of the complainants the issue that needs to be
considered is that whether the captioned complaint is maintainable?

8. Before moving to answer the issues framed hereinabove the following observations
are noteworthy:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

A.
That the respondent no. 1 has filed an application seeking dismissal of the
captioned complaint on the ground of non-maintainability, primarily relying
upon the earlier decision of the Authority in Bhagwan Wadhwani vs. Pashmina
Realty Pvt. Ltd., contending that the complainants had consented to shift to an
alternate project.
B.
It is observed the respondent no. 1 has not produced on record any document
evidencing the complainant’s consent to shift to the proposed alternate project.
Mere reference to email correspondence without the actual proof of consent
cannot be treated as conclusive.
C.
It appears from the record that the email dated 06.12.2016 issued by the
respondent no. 1 that it had launched another project in collaboration with Ekta
Developers in October 2016, situated close to the Pashmina Lotus project. The
relevant part of the said email is reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference
"We launched a project with Ekta Developers in Oct 2016. This is very close to our
Pashmina Lotus. After its launch, many of our existing Lotus customers came back to
us asking to be shifted to the new project launched by us along with Ekta as it had better
access and much better amenities. We did take time in convincing Ekta to accommodate
all our existing customers in the new project as many of the flats were already sold. We
concluded the flat allocation just yesterday. This project is very close to our Lotus
project.”
D.
From the above communication, it is evident that Respondent No. 1 acknowledged
the launch of a new project and offered three alternative options to the complainants
to shift thereto. However, the complainants did not consent to any such shift and
consistently sought a refund of the amounts paid towards the flat in question.
E.
It is observed that the respondent no. 1, through its letter dated 24.06.2019,
recorded the cancellation of the complainants’ allotment and enclosed a
calculation sheet along with an undertaking to refund the amounts paid by the
complainants and to clear the dues of respondent no. 2 (the lender) on or before

14. 09.2019. The said letter also indicates that the respondent was aware of the
loan disbursed by respondent no. 2 on behalf of the complainants and had
expressly undertaken to repay the same, thereby acknowledging its liability.

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

However, there is no material on record to show that such refund has been
affected or that the deed of cancellation has been executed as undertaken.

9. Therefore, after considering the aforementioned observations, provisions of the Act,
facts of the case, submissions of the parties and the material placed on record, the
Authority hereby concludes that the respondent-promoter has failed to handover
possession along with occupation certificate (OC) by the date of completion as per
the agreement for sale thereby causing considerable delay in completion of the said
project and as such the complainants are entitled to seek relief under section 18 for
refund along with interest on account of delay in handover of possession, from the
date as more specifically mentioned herein above. Thus, the issue at para-No. 7 is
answered in the affirmative.


FINAL ORDER

10. Therefore, after considering the aforementioned observations and provisions of the
Act, the materials placed on record, the facts of the case and submissions made by
the parties, the Authority passes the following order:
A. The captioned complaint is maintainable for reasons more specifically
mentioned herein above
B. No order as to costs.

Manoj Saunik


Chairperson, MahaRERA
MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed by
MANOJ SAUNIK
Date: 2025.11.13
13:18:49 +05'30'