CC12502203

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO. : CC12502203

1. SUNIL VASANT SHINDE,

2. SONAL SUNIL SHINDE


…COMPLAINANTS
Vs
EKTA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED

…RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51600000685


INTERIM ORDER


(Date of Order: 14/07/2026)
Adv. Joyce D’souza i/b Adv. Anil D’souza
For Complainants
Adv. Sharmila for Respondent

1. The present application has been filed by the Respondent seeking permission
to take its Affidavit in Reply dated 30 March 2026 on record in
Complaint No.
CC12502203
. The Respondent has further prayed that the complaint
proceedings be kept in abeyance until the application is decided, that interim
protection be granted in the meantime, and that such other appropriate reliefs
and costs as deemed fit be awarded by this Authority.

2. The Respondent submits that although the matter was listed for hearing on 8
January 2026 and this Authority directed it to file its reply within two weeks,
the reply could not be filed within the stipulated period. It is contended that
during the relevant period, the legal department member handling the matter
ceased to be associated with the Respondent, necessitating the transfer of the
case to a newly assigned legal team member, resulting in delay in preparing
and filing the reply.

3. It is further submitted that, being a private company, the Respondent was
required to coordinate between its legal department, external advocate, and
management before finalizing the Affidavit in Reply. According to the
Respondent, these internal processes consumed considerable time, causing the

CC12502203

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

delay. The Respondent contends that the application has been filed at the
earliest practicable opportunity and that the delay was neither deliberate nor
intentional.

4. The Respondent lastly contends that no prejudice would be caused to the
Complainant if the reply is taken on record, whereas refusal to do so would
result in serious prejudice by depriving the Respondent of an opportunity to
defend itself against the allegations in the complaint. It is submitted that the
balance of convenience lies in permitting the reply to be taken on record and
granting the Respondent an opportunity to present its defence before the
complaint is proceeded with.

5. The Complainants have opposed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the
Respondent seeking to take its Affidavit in Reply on record. It is contended that
despite repeated opportunities granted by this Authority, the Respondent
failed to file its Reply within the prescribed timelines and ultimately uploaded
the Reply on 31.03.2026 without obtaining prior leave of the Authority.
According to the Complainants, the application deserves to be dismissed with
costs as the delay is deliberate, unexplained, and contrary to the directions of
this Authority.

6. The Complainants submit that the complaint was filed on 28.06.2025 and was
first listed for regular hearing on 23.09.2025, when, at the Respondent's own
request, three weeks' time was granted to file the Affidavit in Reply by

28. 10.2025. As no Reply was filed, the matter was again listed on 08.01.2026,
when the Respondent once again sought two weeks' time. This Authority
granted a final opportunity till 19.01.2026. Despite availing the time sought by
itself, the Respondent neither filed its Reply nor sought extension of time, and
only uploaded the Reply on 31.03.2026, nearly 72 days after the expiry of the
last opportunity and without obtaining leave of the Authority.

7. The Complainants further contend that the reasons assigned by the Respondent
for the delay, namely change in the legal department, reassignment of the
matter, internal discussions, and approval processes, are vague, unsupported
by documentary evidence, and wholly insufficient. It is submitted that the same
law firm continuously represented the Respondent throughout the
proceedings and different advocates from the same firm regularly appeared
before this Authority. The Respondent has failed to explain how the alleged
change in its legal department prevented timely filing of the Reply or to
produce any material substantiating such explanation.

CC12502203

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

8. It is further submitted that internal administrative procedures or coordination
between the legal department, management, and advocates cannot constitute
sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Complainants contend that the
Respondent was fully aware of the proceedings, repeatedly sought time on its
own request, yet failed to comply with the timelines fixed by this Authority.
The Respondent's reliance on the principles of natural justice is stated to be
misconceived, as such principles cannot be invoked to excuse repeated non-
compliance with judicial directions or to cure the Respondent's own negligence
and procedural lapses. Accordingly, the Complainants pray that the
Miscellaneous Application be rejected with exemplary costs.

9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material
available on record. It is undisputed that the Respondent failed to file its
Affidavit in Reply within the timeline granted by this Authority and the same
came to be filed belatedly. Though the explanation offered for the delay is not
entirely satisfactory, the question before this Authority is whether such delay
should result in denial of an opportunity to contest the complaint.

10. The proceedings before this Authority are guided by the principles of natural
justice. The principle of audi alteram partem mandates that every party must be
afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any adverse order is
passed. Taking the Reply on record would enable this Authority to consider
the rival pleadings and evidence comprehensively and render a reasoned and
legally sustainable order. Such a course would also be in the interest of the
Complainants, as an order passed after considering the defence of the
Respondent would be less susceptible to challenge on the ground of violation
of the principles of natural justice.

11. At the same time, this Authority cannot overlook the fact that despite sufficient
opportunities, including a last opportunity, the Respondent failed to file its
Reply within the stipulated period and sought leave only after filing the Reply
belatedly. Such conduct has resulted in avoidable delay in the proceedings and
deserves to be appropriately compensated.

12. In view thereof, while this Authority is inclined to allow the present application
in the interest of substantial justice and complete adjudication of the dispute,
the same deserves to be allowed subject to costs. Accordingly, the Affidavit in
Reply is taken on record, subject to the Respondent paying costs of Rs. 2,000/-
to the Complainants within 15 days from the date of this order. It is clarified
that acceptance of the Reply shall not be construed as acceptance of its contents,

CC12502203

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

and all rival contentions are kept open for consideration at the time of final
adjudication.

ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous Application is allowed.

2. The Affidavit in Reply filed by the Respondent is taken on record, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainants within 15 days from the
date of this order.

3. The Respondent shall place on record proof of payment of the aforesaid costs
before the next date of hearing.

4. The Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of.

Date: 14/07/2026.

Ravindra Deshpande
MEMBER II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.07.14 17:08:08
+05'30'