━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

1. COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000580942

SHREE KRISHNA SILK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

…COMPLAINANT/S
a/w

2. COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000580943

COMRADE LEASE FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED

…COMPLAINANT/S
a/w

3. COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000580944

COMRADE LEASE FINVEST PVT. LTD.


…COMPLAINANT/S
VS

1. SKY FOREST PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

2. RAJEEV PRABHAKAR PITKAR

3. NILESH SURESH CHOPADE

4. SUMER SINGH TOKAS

5. INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

…RESPONDENT/S


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51900000467


INTERIM ORDER


(Amendment application)

October 16th, 2025
(Date of hearing 18.08.2025- Matters were reserved for orders)


Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Yogendra Singh is present for complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3
Advocate Abir Patel is present for respondent no. 1 (Sky Forest Projects Pvt. Ltd.) at Sr.
Nos. 1 to 3
Advocate Indrajeet Hingne is present for respondent no. 5 (Indiabulls Housing Finance
Limited) at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3

1. The complainants are home buyers and allottees within the meaning of Section
2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred
to as the “RERA”). The respondent no. 1 is the promoter/developer within the
meaning of Section 2 (zk) of the Act and is registered as the promoter of the project
namely “Indiabulls Sky Forest -A2” under section 5 of the Act bearing

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━


MAHARERA Project Registration No P51900000467
(hereinafter referred to as the
“project”).

2. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage the proposed completion date
(PDC) of the project is mentioned as 30.09.2019 and the revised proposed date of
completion (RDC) is 30.09.2023. The promoter has obtained part occupancy
certificate dated 28.04.2022 and occupancy certificate dated 30.11.2023 for the
project.

3. The complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 have filed amendment application dated

16. 06.2025 seeking the following reliefs:
SR.
NO.

COMPLAINT NO.
RELIEFS
SOUGHT

1. CC006000000580942 “a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the Complainant to amend the
Complaint in terms of the Schedule appended hereto along with other
consequential amendments.
b. Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
c. Costs”

2. CC006000000580943

3. CC006000000580944

4. All the complaints were heard by this Authority on 18.08.2025 (listed at Sr. No. 6, 7
& 8) on amendment application wherein the following roznama was recorded:
“Heard both parties on amendment application. The respondent no 5 is at liberty to file
reply to the amendment application. Complaints at Sr no 6, 7 and 8 reserved for order on
amendment application. Matters at Sr. no. 6 to 11 stand adjourned to 06.10.2025.”

5. The brief submissions of the complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 with respect to the
amendment application are as follows:
a. The complainants have filed the present complaints on 28.06.2024 seeking
various reliefs against the respondents in respect of the subject flats.
b. The present amendment application has been filed to bring on record certain
subsequent events which, according to the complainants, have transpired
after the filing of the complaint and are material for effective adjudication.
c. The complainants submit that, the complaint was first listed before this
Authority on 22.07.2024 when urgent interim reliefs were sought. Thereafter,
respondent no.1 issued a termination notice purporting to cancel the allotment
of the subject flat and indicated payment to respondent no.5 towards release

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

of an alleged mortgage. The complainants assert that no mortgage have been
legally created.
d. The complainants allege that the termination and subsequent sale are
fraudulent, pre-planned and intended to defeat its rights.
e. The complainants were constrained to move the Bombay High Court for
appropriate reliefs by filing Writ Petitions.
f. On these grounds, the complainants seek amendment of the complaints:
i. Substitution of details of respondent no.5 (Sammaan Capital Limited,
formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited);
ii. Impleadment of proposed respondent no. 6;
iii. Incorporation of pleadings relating to the termination notice, subsequent
sale and related correspondence;
iv. Addition of prayers to quash the termination notice, declare the
agreement for sale executed with respondent no.6 as null and void, and
direct cancellation thereof.
g. Having considered the submissions and material placed on record, it is
evident that the amendments sought pertain to subsequent developments
arising from the same subject matter of the complaint. The reliefs proposed do
not change the basic nature or cause of action but are intrinsically connected
with the dispute originally raised.
h. In the circumstances, the proposed amendment is necessary for complete and
effective adjudication of the complaint and to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the amendment
is allowed.

6. The brief submissions of the respondent no. 1 with respect to the amendment
application are as follows:
a. That the amendment application is belated, having been filed almost a year
after the complaint, and seeks to fundamentally alter the foundation and scope
of the original complaint.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

b. That the complainants are themselves in default under the Tripartite
Agreement, having failed to execute and register their agreement for sale,
make balance payments and take possession despite repeated calls by
respondent no.1, who has already obtained the occupation certificate on

28. 04.2022.
c. That owing to such defaults, respondent no.1 was constrained to terminate the
allotment and thereafter validly sold the flat to a third-party purchaser. No
stay was ever granted against the termination; hence, the complainants are no
longer an allottee and has no locus to pursue the present complaints.
d. That the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser (proposed respondent
No.6) is wholly unnecessary and intended only to harass respondent no.1,
particularly when the complainants have already raised similar claims before
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petitions.
e. That the deletion and substitution of respondent no.5 is mala fide, as under
the Tripartite Agreement the lender had the first charge and right to refund
upon cancellation, which the complainant is attempting to avoid.
f. That the proposed amendments are not confined to subsequent events but
seek to set up an entirely new case inconsistent with the original pleadings,
which is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed on various judgements.
g. That the complainants, being in breach of its obligations under Sections 13,
19(6) and 19(7) of the Act are not entitled to any reliefs, much less the extensive
amendments now sought.

7. Based on the facts, submissions of both the parties the following observations are
noteworthy:
a. It is noted that the complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 seek to bring on record
subsequent events, including the alleged termination of their allotment by
respondent no.1 and the purported re-sale of the subject flats to third-party
purchasers. They also seek to implead the subsequent purchasers as parties to
the complaint and to amend the details of respondent no.5 accordingly.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

b. It is further observed that the complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 have already
raised similar issues before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of a Writ
Petitions, which is presently pending.
c. It is also pertinent to note that, apart from the present complaints filed by the
complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3, there are three cross-complaints bearing Nos.
CC12401057, CC12401058, and CC12401063 filed by the respondents against
these complainants. Thus, a total of six complaints between the same parties
are pending adjudication before this Authority.
d. As per the roznama dated 18.08.2025, all six complaints were adjourned to

06. 10.2025. The relevant portion of the roznama reads as under:
“The complainants in Sr. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 state that they will file affidavit of service
on the respondent by 15.10.2025. The matters are adjourned to 27.10.2025 and the
Registry to issue notice to all the parties.”
e. In view of the above, the complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 have been directed to
file the affidavit of service by 15.10.2025, in compliance with the directions
contained in the roznama.
f. It is therefore observed that all six complaints, including those filed by the
complainants and the corresponding cross-complaints, stand adjourned to

27. 10.2025 for hearing on merits.

8. The only issue that needs to be considered is Whether the amendment applications
dated 16.06.2025 filed by the complainants in the complaints at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 to be
allowed?”

9. Upon considering the material on record and the submissions of both sides, the
Authority is of the view that the amendments sought by the complainants at Sr.
Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be wholly extraneous or irrelevant. The events of
termination of allotment and subsequent re-sale, though disputed, are material
developments which go to the root of the controversy between the parties. In the
interest of justice and for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute,
such subsequent events are required to be brought on record.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

10. While it is true that the amendment has been sought after some lapse of time, mere
delay, in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, cannot be a ground to reject an
otherwise necessary amendment. The objections of respondent no.1 regarding
maintainability and locus of the complainants can be raised and adjudicated at the
stage of final hearing. Permitting the amendment at this stage does not amount to
allowing the reliefs sought therein but only enables the Authority to have before
it all relevant facts for adjudication.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its recent

JUDGMENT

in Bansal Milk Chilling
Centre & Anr. v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr. (2025 INSC 899) has
reiterated that amendments to complaints are permissible even after cognizance
has been taken, especially when such amendments are necessary for a proper and
complete adjudication of the matter. Further, the Authority has the inherent power
to allow such amendments to do complete justice between the parties. Regulation
42 of the MahaRERA General Regulations 2017 reads as under:
“General power to amend/rectify : The Authority may, at any time and on such terms as
to costs or otherwise, as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceedings
before it (including any clerical or arithmetical error in any order passed by the Authority),
and all necessary amendments, rectifications shall be made for the purpose of determining
the real question or issue arising in the proceedings.”

12. In view of the foregoing observation, the Authority is of the considered opinion
that the amendments sought are bona fide, germane to the issues in dispute, and
essential for an effective and complete adjudication of the matter. Permitting such
amendments would subserve the ends of justice and enable a comprehensive
determination of the controversy without occasioning any prejudice to the
respondents. Accordingly, the amendment application dated 16.06.2025 stands
allowed in all the complaints at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3. The issue at para no. 8 is answered
in affirmative.


INTERIM ORDER

13. In view of the observations hereinabove, the following order is passed:

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

A. The amendment applications dated 16.06.2025 filed in the complaints at Sr.
Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed.
B. Accordingly, the complainants are permitted to carry out the amendments
in terms of the respective applications and to file amended copies of their
complaints.
C. The complainants at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 shall also serve the amended copies upon
all the respondents, including respondent no.6, the subsequent purchaser,
and file service affidavit on or before 21.10.2025.
D. The respondents shall be at liberty to file their replies, if any, on the merits
of the amended complaints before the next date of hearing, i.e., 27.10.2025.


Manoj Saunik


Chairperson, MahaRERA

MANOJ
SAUNIK
Digitally signed by
MANOJ SAUNIK
Date: 2025.10.16
17:58:04 +05'30'