Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC006000000591212

Kunal Vishnu Sawant


... Complainant/s

Versus

Mr Nimish Shah, Lotus Laxminarayan Homes & Partners
... Respondent/s
Alongwith

2. Complaint No. CC006000000591184

Dr Prashant Ramrao Pawar


... Complainant/s

Versus

Mr Nimish Shah, Lotus Laxminarayan Homes & Partners
... Respondent/s
Alongwith

3. Complaint No. CC006000000591224

Pramod Hiraman Patil


... Complainant/s

Versus

Mr Nimish Shah, Lotus Laxminarayan Homes &Partners
... Respondent/s
Alongwith

4. Complaint No. CC006000000591214

Mukeshkumar Amarpal Mishra


... Complainant/s

Versus

Mr. Nimesh Dilip Shah & Partner M/S.Lotus Lakshmi
Narayan Homes


... Respondent/s
Alongwith

5. Complaint No. CC006000000591273

Pramod Madhukar Bhoir


... Complainant/s

Versus

Mr Nimish Shah, Lotus Laxminarayan Homes & Partners
... Respondent/s
Alongwith

6. Complaint No. CC006000000591215

Sakshi Gautam Mohite


... Complainant/s

Versus

Mr Nimish Shah, Lotus Laxminarayan Homes & Partners
... Respondent/s


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P99000015966


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

The complainants appeared in person (Through VC)


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Ld. Adv. Vinay Rawat i/b JRA Law Associates appeared for the respondent. (Through VC)

INTERIM ORDER
(Order Pronounced on Thursday, 4th December 2025)
(Matters reserved for orders on 10-09-2025 )
(Hearing through Hybrid mode)

1. The complainants above named have filed these 6 separate online complaints before the
MahaRERA on 18/07/2024 (Sr. No. 1), on 19/07/2024 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3), on 21/07/2024 (Sr. No.
4) and on 22/07/2024 (Sr.No.5 and 6), mainly seeking directions from MahaRERA, to the
respondent, to handover possession of the said flats to them along with OC, interest and
compensation etc, ( more precisely mentioned in the below table at para- no. 5), as prescribed
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘RERA’), in respect of the booking their respective flats in the respondent’s
registered project known as “HARI RESIDENCY PHASE I” bearing MahaRERA registration No.
P99000015966 located at Vasai, Palghar. (hereinafter referred to as the said project).

2. These complaints were clubbed together , the same being filed with respect to the said project
and the same were heard by the MahaRERA on several occasions and finally on 10-09-2025 as
per Circular no. 48 dated 11-08-2025 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of complaints through
Hybrid Mode. Both the parties have been issued prior intimation of the said hearing. On the said
date of hearing, both parties have appeared and made their respective submissions. The
MahaRERA heard the submissions of both the parties and also perused the available record.

3. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, the following Roznama was recorded in these
complaints–
On 10-09-2025 :
“Both the parties are present. The respondents have filed replies to the complaints although
late on 08-09-2025. In the replies, the respondents have pointed out that the complainants
have filed consumer cases before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
sometime in March 2025. Subsequent to the said replies by the respondents, the complainants
have uploaded their say yesterday in the complaints (as applicable), requesting that the
present RERA proceedings may be continued even though the complainants have filed
complaints before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. Therefore,


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

since the respondents have objected to the same, the matter is reserved for orders on the issue
of maintainability of these complaints before the MahaRERA considering that the
complainants have filed consumer complaints before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission. The future course of action will be taken once such an order is passed.
Both parties contend that they do not wish to make any further submissions on the issue of
maintainability of these complaints. Reserved for orders accordingly.”

4. The complainants have filed their submissions on record of MahaRERA on 11-09-2025. The same
is accepted and taken on record. The MahaRERA has perused the available records.

5. The complainants have filed these complaints seeking following reliefs as mentioned in the table
given below. The details of the flats (in these 6 complaints) booked by the complainants herein,
dates of agreements for sale, dates of possession, total consideration, consideration paid,
substantive reliefs are as per the table given below –
Sr no.

Complaint no.
Flat
details
AFS
Possession date
Total
Consideration
Consideration
Paid
Reliefs

1. CC006000000591212
Flat no. 205, 32.55 sq. mt,
A wing

09-11-2020
March
2022
(clause 18)
Rs. 22,95,000/-
100% paid
Interest for the delay in possession
till the actual date of possession
with valid OC, compensation,
possession with quality work.
Direct the respondent to demand
maintenance charges only from the
date, after obtaining the requisite
OC. Direct the respondent cannot
arbitrarily levy holding charge, or
any
other
charges/interests/penalties.
Restrict
the
respondent
from
demanding unwarranted demand
of money for anything. Direction
to the respondent that it cannot
take any undertaking on stamp
paper at the time of possession.

2. CC006000000591184
Flat 808 wing A
14-12-2021
December 2022
Rs. 36,72,000/-
Rs. 29,90,920/-
Same as per sr. no. 1

3. CC006000000591224
707 7th floor, A wing
22-08-2022
December 2022
Rs. 28,00,000/-
Rs. 24,21,000/-
Same as per sr. no. 1

4. CC006000000591214
Flat no. 308, A wing
31-05-2019
March 2022
Rs. 33,63,000/-
Rs. 33,63,000/-
Same as per sr. no. 1

5. CC006000000591273
Flat no. 208, 2nd floor, A
28-11-2019
March 2022
Rs. 32,61,500/-
Rs.29,82,000/-(including
Same as per sr. no. 1


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

wing
stamp
duty
and
other
charges)

6. CC006000000591215
Flat no. A-801,
22-06-2022 April
2023
Rs. 29,61,000/-
91% paid
Same as per sr. no. 1

6. The complainants on 17-08-2025 have uploaded a common application for directions to be issued
to the respondent for society formation on the record of the MahaRERA, wherein the
complainants stated that, the respondent has reportedly sold 88 Units in the said project and total
185 units the project of wing A, B, C, crossing the 50% threshold mandated under section 11(4)(e)
of the RERA, which requires the promoter to facilitate formation of a society or Association of
Allottees. However, the respondent has failed to initiate a transparent process and may be
attempting to form a society secretly or selectively, involving only those allottees who have taken
unauthorised or premature possession, thereby excluding the majority of genuine and legally
compliant allottees. The complainants apprehended that any such society formation without
advance written intimation to all allottees, especially the complainants who are actively pursuing
legal remedies, would amount to a violation of the spirit and purpose of the act and result in
prejudice and exclusion of rightful members. Hence, in view of the aforesaid submissions, the
complainants prayed for direction to be issued to the respondent to issue prior written intimation
to all allottees, including the present complainants, before initiating any steps for the formation
or registration of the society/association for the said project. Direct the respondent to ensure
equal and transparent participation of all allottees in any such formation and not restrict or
exclude any member based on their possession status or complaint status. Direct that no society
formation or registration shall be valid unless documentary evidence of proper notice and
participation is filed before MahaRERA and accepted.

7. The complainants on 17-08-2025 uploaded their final claim summary table on the record of the
MahaRERA, wherein the complainants tabulated there claims of interest to be paid by the
respondent and claims of area shortfall in detailed manner.

8. The complainants on 17-08-2025 also uploaded their written submissions along with their
rejoinders on the record of the MahaRERA, wherein the complainants have reiterated their
submissions in detailed manner. Additionally, it was submitted that these matters were referred
to the MahaRERA Conciliation Forum as per the MahaRERA’s direction. During the initial
hearing, the advocate representing the respondent gave false assurances of cooperation and
assured that the issue would be resolved amicably. In good faith, the complainants participated


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

in the conciliation process with full willingness to resolve the matters etc.

9. The respondent has filed reply on record of MahaRERA on 08-09-2025 ( in all 6 complaints),
wherein it has stated that these complaints are not maintainable as the Complainants had already
approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the same allegations and
reliefs, and parallel proceedings were not permissible. The respondent submitted that the project
Hari Residency Phase-I (MahaRERA Reg. No. P99000015966) was duly registered, a part OC for
Wing C had been obtained, and possession was handed over. For Wing-“A”, finishing work was
completed and the OC process had begun. It stated that the delay was due to unforeseen
circumstances, including the Covid--19 pandemic, shortage of labour and material, partners’
health issues, and freezing of funds in PMC Bank. An extension until 31-12-2027 was granted
with consent of over 51% of purchasers, including five of the six Complainants. The respondent
denied allegations of excess GST, unfair charges, area discrepancies, and non-provision of
documents, stating that GST was charged as per law. It was further stated that the Complainants
raised vague allegations without specific evidence, and the complaint lacked clear claims or
reliefs, making it defective and frivolous. As the Complainants also approached the Consumer
Forum for the same reliefs, therefore the Respondent sought dismissal of the complaint with
costs.

10. The complainants filed their rejoinder on 09-09-2025, replying to the respondent’s submissions
para-wise. They submitted that the allegation of forum shopping is misconceived, as they had
already filed a Joint Application on 01-07-2025 before MahaRERA disclosing the pendency of the
consumer case and undertaking not to seek double recovery. Relying on Imperia Structures Ltd. v.
Anil Patni (2020) and Newtech Promoters v. State of UP (2021), the complainants submitted that
remedies under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act are concurrent and parallel. The reliefs
sought before MahaRERA (delay interest, area-deficiency refund, possession with OC) are
regulatory, whereas the consumer complaints seek distinct compensatory reliefs such as mental
agony, rent/EMI, and GST refund. They reiterated that their flats in Wing A have no OC and that
possession without OC is unlawful; fit-out/keys handover cannot constitute possession as per
the Supreme Court’s ruling in Newtech Promoters (2021).

11. The complainants have also filed an application on 08-09-2025 seeking continuation of RERA
proceedings along with the consumer cases. They submitted that they approached the Consumer
Forum only because these RERA complaints remained dormant for long. Proceedings before the


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Consumer Forum are independent and permissible in law. They emphasised that RERA reliefs
(delay interest, lawful possession, prevention of illegal demands) are distinct from reliefs sought
under the Consumer Protection Act (mental agony, excess area/GST refund, rent). They
reiterated their undertaking not to claim overlapping monetary reliefs and to disclose any award
granted by either forum.

12. On 11-09-2025, the complainants have uploaded a consolidated comparative table of reliefs
sought before both forums along with a written undertaking ensuring no duplicate or
overlapping monetary reliefs, and identifying the primary forum for each claim.

13. The MahaRERA has examined the rival submissions made by both the parties and also perused
the available record. complainants, who are the allottees in the respondent’s registered project,
have filed these complaints under Section 31 of the RERA seeking various reliefs under different
provisions of the RERA, including Section 18 (as detailed in the table at para 5 above). They have
alleged delay on the part of the respondent in handing over possession of their respective flats
booked pursuant to the registered agreements for sale executed on various dates as set out in
para 5. According to the complainants, the respondent has failed to hand over possession of the
said flats by the dates stipulated in their respective agreements for sale.

14. However, during the course of the hearing, the respondent filed its replies raising a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of these complaints. The respondent has contended that the
complainants are indulging in forum shopping, as they have already filed consumer complaints
before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking similar reliefs.
Hence, according to the respondent, these complaints under RERA, being parallel and seeking
similar reliefs, are not maintainable and ought to be dismissed.

15. Since the respondent has raised the issue of maintainability at this stage, the MahaRERA is
required to adjudicate the said issue being a preliminary issue before dealing with the facts of
these complaints on merits.

16. The complainants, through their written submissions filed on record, have admitted the filing of
consumer complaints. However, they have contended that the reliefs sought before the Consumer
Forum are distinct and not overlapping with the reliefs sought in the present complaints filed
before
the
MahaRERA
under
the
provisions
of
RERA.
They
have
also
filed


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

affidavits/undertakings confirming that they will not seek or accept double recovery or
overlapping monetary reliefs.

17. Be that as it may, in the present case, on a bare perusal of the rival submissions and the record,
the MahaRERA has noticed that the present complaints before the MahaRERA are filed first in
time i.e., on 18-07-2024 (Sr. No. 1), 19-07-2024 (Sr. Nos. 2 and 3), 21-07-2024 (Sr. No. 4), and 22-07-
2024 (Sr. Nos. 5 and 6). However, the consumer complaints seems to have been filed
subsequently, in February 2025. Therefore, these RERA complaints, being the earlier proceedings,
must be adjudicated on their own merits in accordance with the provisions of the RERA.

18. Meaning thereby, these complainants have first invoked the jurisdiction of the MahaRERA
under RERA and only thereafter initiated proceedings before the Consumer Forum for distinct
and additional reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, as rightly pointed out
by the complainants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and
Newtech Promoters v. State of UP, has categorically held that the pendency of a consumer
complaint does not bar or divest the jurisdiction of RERA authorities.

19. Furthermore, the MahaRERA is of the considered view that the remedies under RERA and the
Consumer Protection Act are concurrent and not mutually exclusive. Since the complainants have
first approached the MahaRERA and have also furnished written undertakings to avoid double
recovery or overlapping reliefs, the pendency of consumer complaints cannot be a ground to
reject or dismiss these complaints on the ground of maintainability. The MahaRERA remains
legally obligated to adjudicate issues relating to delay, lawful possession, area shortfall, and
alleged illegal demands, particularly when no Occupancy Certificate has been obtained for the
said project.

20. In view of the above, the MahaRERA holds that these complaints are maintainable under RERA
and shall be adjudicated on their merits.

21. In view of the above, the following order is passed:-

a) The preliminary objection of the respondent regarding maintainability of these complaints
stands rejected.
b) These complaints are held to be maintainable under Section 31 of RERA and accordingly,


Complaint Nos
. CC006000000591212 & 5 Other complaints

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

these complaints shall now proceed to adjudication on merits on the substantive issues raised
in the complaints.
c) The Registry of this Bench shall place these complaints for final hearing on 17-12-2025.
d) Both the parties are directed to file their respective additional written submissions ( if any on
record of MahaRERA before the next date of hearing and complete the pleadings before the
next date of hearing.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA

MAHESH
DINKAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by MAHESH
DINKAR PATHAK
Date: 2025.12.04
17:12:19 +05'30'