Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
MUMBAI

1. Review Application cum
Complaint No. Complaint
No. CC006000000580839 In
Original
Complaint No. CC006000000056539


Khamabatimodh Vanik Samaj


... Complainant

Versus

Sakkar Bhimani
M/S Bhakti Enterprises
H. Rishbhraj Developers


... Respondents
Along with

2. Review Application cum
Complaint No. Complaint
No.CC006000000580841 In
Original
Complaint No. CC006000000197465


Khamabatimodh Vanik Samaj


... Complainant

Versus

Vinod Kumar Gupta
M/S Bhakti Enterprises
H. Rishbhraj Developers


... Respondents

Along with

3. Review Application cum
Complaint No. Complaint
No. CC006000000580842 In
Original
Complaint No. CC006000000198655

Khamabatimodh Vanik Samaj


... Complainant

Versus

Chetan Vrajlal Vitlani
Manisha Chetan Vitlani
M/S Bhakti Enterprises
H. Rishbhraj Developers


... Respondents
Along with

4. Review Application cum
Complaint No. Complaint
No. CC006000000580843 In

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Original
Complaint No. CC006000000199126

Khamabatimodh Vanik Samaj


... Complainant

Versus

Anita Zatakia
M/S Bhakti Enterprises
H. Rishbhraj Developers


... Respondents


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800010479


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

Ld. Adv. Shashikant Chaudhari appeared for the complainant-promoter.
No one appeared for the respondents-allottees in sr. no. 1
Ld. Adv. Swapnil Utangale appeared for the respondents-allottees no. 2.
Ld. Adv. Chirag Unadkat a/w. Ld. Adv. Charmie Gandhi Shah appeared for the
respondents-allottees no. 3.
Ld. Adv. Vinodini Shrinivasan appeared for the respondents-allottees no. 4.


INTERIM ORDER


(Order Pronounced on Monday, 25th August 2025)
(Matters reserved for orders on 05-06-2025)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The applicant- landowner promoter (hereinafter referred to as an “landowner
promoter”) above named has filed these 4 separate review applications in the form
of fresh complaints before the MahaRERA on 01-07-2024 (all 4 review applications),
mainly seeking directions from MahaRERA to review the order dated 18-04-2022
(impugned order) passed by the MahaRERA in the earlier
complaint nos
.
CC006000000056539,
CC006000000197465,
CC006000000198655
and
CC006000000199126 respectively, filed by the respondent-allottees, (hereinafter
referred to as the “allottees”) under the provisions of Section 39 of the Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’), and
Regulation 36 of the MahaRERA (General), Regulation, 2017 in respect of the booking

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

of their respective flats ( hereinafter referred to as the said flats), in the MahaRERA
registered project known as “Samaj Darshan” bearing MahaRERA registration no.
P51800010479 located at Borivali, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the said
project).

2. These review applications were clubbed together and same were heard by the
MahaRERA on several occasions and finally on 05-06-2025 as per the Standard
Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by the MahaRERA for hearing of
complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued prior
intimation of the said hearing. On the said dates of hearings, both the parties have
appeared as per their appearances recorded in the Roznamas and made their
respective submissions. The MahaRERA heard the arguments of the parties as per
their appearances and also perused the available record.

3. After hearing the arguments on both the parties, the following Roznama was passed
in these review applications:-
05-06-2025:-
“Both the parties are present. As it transpired during the hearing, there are appeals
filed by the allottees herein ( as applicable) against the order which sought to be
reviewed by the applicant -landowner in the project dated 18-04-2022. In the review
application at Sr. No. 40 (CC006000000580842), the respondent allottees have
contended that, the rectification order passed by the Hon’ble Chairperson, dated 19-
12-2022 ( in Suo Moto Case No. 215 of 2022) has been appealed by them before the
Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal under Appeal No. S2 of 2023. In the review application
at Sr. No. 41 (CC006000000580843), the respondent allottees have contended that,
three appeals have been filed by them before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal against
the order dated 18-04-2022 of the Authority and both the orders of the Hon’ble
Chairperson dated 21-01-2022 ( in Suo Moto Case No. 215 of 2022) and 19-12-2022
(rectification). The respondent - allottees in Sr. Nos. 38 (CC006000000580839) and 39
(CC006000000580841) are also sailing in the same boat, since the impugned order of
the Authority dated 18-04-2022 (which is under review) is applicable to all the

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

allottees who are the subject matter of these appeals. In view of the above, all the
parties agree that the MahaRERA cannot proceed with these review applications at
this stage as per the provision of Regulation 36 of Maharashtra Real Estate
(General), Regulations 2017 since there are appeals filed against the impugned order
dated 18-04-2022 passed by the MahaRERA specifically. In view of the above, these
matters are reserved for orders on the issue of adjourning the matters sine die till the
matters ( as stated above) before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal are decided finally.”

4. The MahaRERA has perused the available record.

5. In the present case, the landowner-promoter, by filing these review applications in
the form of fresh complaints, has approached the MahaRERA mainly seeking review
of the common order dated 18-04-2022 passed by the Ld Erstwhile Member-1,
MahaRERA (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) which was passed in
the aforesaid original complaints filed by the allottees in the said project seeking
reliefs under Section 18 of the RERA. For the sake of convenience, the said impugned
order is reproduced hereinbelow.:-
“24. As far as the other complaints filed seeking reliefs under section 18 of the RERA for possession
of their flats along with interest, the MahaRERA is of the view that admittedly, the present
complainants have purchased their respective units from the erstwhile promoter. There are registered
agreements for sale executed with these complainants whereby the erstwhile promoter has agreed to
handover possession of their flat on the agreed dates of possession mentioned in their agreements for
sale. Admittedly, the possession has not been handed over to these complainants. It shows that there
is violation of section 18 of the RERA and hence the complainants are entitled to seek reliefs under
section 18 of the RERA.

25. However, in the present case as stated hereinabove there is one order passed by the Hon’ble
Chairperson /MahaRERA dated 21-01-2022 Further, since the owner has taken over all the liability
and responsibility out of the liabilities created by the erstwhile promoter , the MahaRERA is of the
view that the rights and liabilities of the allottees of the project are already protected by the aforesaid
order passed by the Hon’ble Chairperson, MahaRERA. Hence since the owner has stepped into the
shoes of the erstwhile promoter, the owner is liable to comply with the statutory obligations of the
erstwhile promoters towards these complainants allottees.

26. Considering these facts the following order is passed:

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

a. The complaint at sr no. 4 stands rejected.
b. The rights of the complainants at sr nos. 1, 2 , 3 and 5 as allottees of this project stands protected.
c. The owner is directed to comply with the liabilities of the erstwhile promoter and handover
possession of the said flats to the complainants as per the registered agreements for sale executed
with these complainants.
d. The owner is directed to allot another flats to the complainants at sr no. 1 having similar area as
booked by the complainants and execute the registered agreement for sale. Failing which it is directed
to refund the entire money paid by the said complainants along with interest as prescribed under the
provisions of section 18 of the RERA and the relevant Rules made thereunder. e. The owner is further
directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants at sr. nos. 2,3 and 5 from the
agreed dates of possession mentioned in the agreements for every month till the actual date of
possession with occupancy certificate on the actual amount paid by the complainants towards the
consideration of their flats at the rate of Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% as
prescribed under the provisions of section 18 of the RERA and the Rules made thereunder.
f. However, in view of the mitigating circumstances beyond the control of the owner and also to ensure
that the said project is not jeopardised due to the outflow of finances and is completed keeping in
mind the interest of the other buyers of the said project at large, it is directed that the amounts of
refund in complaint at sr no. 1 and interest payment in complaints at sr nos. 2, 3 and 5 may be paid
by the owner to the complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate. Moreover, the owner
at the time of possession of the flats to the said complainants may set off the outstanding dues, if
any, with the interest amount payable by it to the said complainants and the balance amount if any
by either party be paid at the time of possession.
g. With regard to the payment of interest to the complainants, the MahaRERA further directs that the
owner is entitled to claim the benefit of “moratorium period” as mentioned in the Notifications
/Orders nos. 13 and 14 dated 2nd April, 2020 and 18th May, 2020 issued by the MahaRERA and the
Notification/Order which may be issued in this regard from time to time.”

6. However, in the present case, on bare perusal of the available record, the
MahaRERA has noticed that the landowner promoter had appointed the
respondent no. 2 - M/s Bhakti Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the
erstwhile promoter), as its promoter for redevelopment of the project land by
assigning the development rights by virtue of the development agreement in
favour of the erstwhile promoter. However, due to breach of the terms and
conditions of the said development agreement, landowner promoter had filed
a Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 147 of 2018 along with Commercial

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Arbitration Petition No. 54 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay
and has also filed Notice of Motion No. 99 of 2020 against the erstwhile
promoter. In the said proceeding the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass
an order on 26-11-2020, whereby the Hon’ble High Court has granted leave to
the landowner promoter to appoint a new promoter for this project.

7. Pursuant to the said order dated 26-11-2020 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court, the landowner promoter applied for change of promoter to
MahaRERA under section 15 of the RERA. The said application was converted
into Suo Moto Case No. 215 of 2022. In the said proceeding, after hearing the
arguments advanced by all parties concerned, the Hon’ble Erstwhile
Chairperson/MahaRERA was pleased to pass an order on 21-01-2022. The
same reads as under:-
“Thus, H. RISHABRAJ DEVELOPERS are permitted as the new Promoter for the
said Project and the said Trust shall be held liable to take on all the responsibility
arising out of the liabilities created by the erstwhile (old) Promoter f Developer of the
said Project. Needless to say, that H. RISHABRAJ DEVELOPERS shall be required
to independently comply with all the pending obligations under the provisions of the
said Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder. Further, H. RISHABRAJ
DEVELOPERS are allowed to make changes in FSI as may be approved by the
Planning Authority. and are also granted an extension of the said Project up to

30. 04.2023 to complete the balance construction work and handover possession to
the Allottees of the said Project. H. RISHABRAJ DEVELOPERS is also directed to
submit PERT CPM charts about the milestones to be achieved with respect to the
completion of the said Project in a time bound manner and also submit quarterly
progress reports of achievements of such milestones and/ or delay rt any, to
MahaRERA, the said Trust, the Allottees and the Association of Allottees of the said
Project”.

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21-01-2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Chairperson/MahaRERA, the landowner promoter preferred an Appeal No.
S-1/2O22 before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal. In the said appeal, the
Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal was pleased to pass an order on 28-03-2022. The
same reads as under:-
“Learned counsel for Appellant submits that observations and directions made in the
impugned order are contrary to the order dated 13.01.2022 of the Hon’ble Bombay
High court. He seeks to withdraw the Appeal with liberty granted to Appellant to
approach the Authority by filing necessary Application for rectification in line with
the submissions made by the Appellant during complaint proceeding and also in
conformity to the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High court. Appeal stands withdrawn
with liberty to Appellant to approach the Authority to seek redressal of grievance
pertaining to the impugned order. On being approached, the Authority to consider the
contentions of Appellant/parties and take appropriate view in the matter accordingly.
No costs. '”

9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 28-03-2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Appellate Tribunal, the landowner promoter herein had filed an application
for rectifications in the aforesaid order dated 21-01-2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Erstwhile Chairperson/MahaRERA.

10. Accordingly, on the said rectification application after hearing the submissions
of the parties concerned, the Hon’ble Erstwhile Chairperson/MahaRERA was
pleased to pass an order dated 19-12-2022 modifying certain paras of the said
original order dated 21-01-2022. The said order dated 19-12-2022 reads as
under:-
“From the plain reading of section 39 it is clear that this Authority can only rectify
any mistake apparent from the record or amend any order passed by it, if the mistake
is brought to its notice by the Parties i.e. in the present case the Applicant herein. The

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Applicant vide its application for rectification has brought to the notice of this
Authority an apparent mistake in the observation and the operative part of the said
order seeking rectification of the said order wherein the para No. 6 has inadvertently
held the Applicant Trust liable for liabilities arising out of the erstwhile (old) Promoter
though the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its orders clearly stated that the
appointment of the new Promoter was allowed and that the Allottees of the erstwhile
(Old) Promoter cannot claim any ad-interim reliefs against either the new Promoter
or the Applicant Trust herein with whom they have no privy of contract. In view of
the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the part of the observation in para
6 of the said order is hereby deleted i.e. “In view of the undertaking submitted by the
said Trust and the submission made by the said Trust this Authority directs the said
Trust shall be held liable to take on all the responsibility, if any in the future arising
out of the liabilities created by the erstwhile (old) Promoter / Developer of the said
Project.” and also the part of the direction in the operative part of the said order is
hereby deleted i.e. “and the said Trust shall be held liable to take on all the responsibility
arising out of the liabilities created by the erstwhile (old) Promoter / Developer of the
said Project.” The remaining part of the said order shall remain valid and subsisting
and the said order to be read with this rectification order henceforth.”

11. From the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon’ble Chairperson/MahaRERA as
well as by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal, it is evident that in the said project,
an order under Section 15 of the RERA has already been passed pursuant to
the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Consequently, the
rights and liabilities of the allottees have already been adjudicated on merits,
considering the orders passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal as well as the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. It has been held therein that the landowner-
promoter and the respondent no. 3, namely M/s. H. Rishabhraj Developers
(new promoter), are not liable for any allotments made by the erstwhile
promoter, M/s. Bhakti Enterprises.

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 9 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 18-04-2022 passed by
the Learned Erstwhile Member-1, MahaRERA, based on the earlier order dated
22-01-2022 passed by the Hon’ble Erstwhile Chairperson, MahaRERA, does
not survive. This is for the reason that the same stands modified by the
subsequent order dated 19-12-2022 passed by the Hon’ble Erstwhile
Chairperson, MahaRERA, in Suo Motu Case No. 215 of 2022.

13. However, during the course of hearing, the allottees in the matter at Sr. No. 3
contended that, being aggrieved by the rectification order dated 19-12-2022
passed in Suo Motu Case No. 215 of 2022, they have preferred Appeal No. S2
of 2023 before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal, which is pending adjudication.
Furthermore, the allottee at Sr. No. 4 has also submitted that she has filed three
separate appeals before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal against the orders
dated 18-04-2022 (impugned order), 22-01-2022, and 19-12-2022 (rectification
order) passed in the aforesaid Suo Motu Case No. 215 of 2022.

14. Be that as it may, in the present case, from the aforesaid facts as cited by the
allottees at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4, the MahaRERA has observed that the impugned
order dated 18-04-2022 has already been challenged in appeal by the allottee
at Sr. No. 4. Hence, the present review applications filed by the landowner-
promoter cannot be proceeded with. Moreso, the allottees at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2
are similarly placed allottees and are ostensibly sailing in the same boat.
Therefore, even though no appeals have been filed by them, the MahaRERA
cannot proceed to decide the said review applications filed against them, in
view of the explicit provisions of Regulation 36 of the MahaRERA (General)
Regulations, 2017. Needless to state that even the appeals filed by the allottees
challenging the orders dated 22-01-2022 and 19-12-2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Erstwhile Chairperson, MahaRERA, have a direct bearing on these review

Review Application cum
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000580839 and 3 ors.
Original
Complaint Nos
. CC006000000056539 and 3 ors.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 10 of 10
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

applications filed by the landowner-promoter.

15. In view of the above, these review applications are adjourned sine die till the
final disposal of the aforesaid appeals filed by the allottees at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4
before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal. However, both parties are directed to
approach the MahaRERA upon disposal of the said appeals by the Hon’ble
Appellate Tribunal.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA