СC12502605

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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference
as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: СC12502605

1. MANISHA VASANT SHINDE

2. REKHA VASANT SHINDE …COMPLAINANTS
Vs

1. GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LTD

2. DHYEY REALTORS LLP
…RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51900034851

18. 05.2026
(Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Advocate Snehal Walunj for Complainants
Advocate Rishika for Respondents No.1
Advocate Shreya Dholakia for Respondent No.2

1. The Complainant has filed the present application seeking that the Reply
dated 11.03.2026 filed by Respondent No. 1 on the MahaRERA website be not
taken on record on account of delay and misuse of the time granted by this
Hon’ble Authority, and further prays for imposition of appropriate
costs/penalty upon the Respondents; in the alternative, if the said Reply is
taken on record, the Complainant seeks liberty to file a rejoinder and
additional submissions, along with such other and further orders as this
Hon’ble Authority may deem fit in the interest of justice.

СC12502605

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

2. The Complainant submits that as per the Roznama dated 20.01.2026, this
Hon’ble Authority had directed the Respondents to file their reply on or
before 09.02.2026; however, the Respondents filed their reply only on

11. 03.2026 at 1:00 a.m., i.e., with a delay of almost one month, clearly reflecting
a negligent and non-cooperative approach towards the proceedings. It is
further contended that the Respondents, while relying upon the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are equally bound to adhere to the
prescribed timelines, and such an inordinate delay renders the reply liable to
be rejected. The Complainant also submits that the Respondents have
consistently filed delayed and repetitive submissions, indicating an attempt to
unnecessarily prolong the proceedings before this Hon’ble Authority.

3. The Complainant further submits that since the inception of the present
proceedings, it has been consistently brought to the notice of this Hon’ble
Authority that Complainant No. 2, Mrs. Rekha Shinde, is a cancer patient
suffering from a serious medical condition, and the relevant medical
documents were already placed on record on 28.07.2025; Upon perusal, the
reply filed by the Respondents does not disclose any new or substantial
material and merely reiterates earlier contentions, thereby not assisting this
Hon’ble Authority in adjudication of the matter..

4. Respondent No1 has filed a reply and contested the said application.

5. At the outset, Respondent No. 1 denies all statements, allegations and
submissions made in the present Application and states that nothing therein
be deemed admitted for want of specific traverse; it is further submitted that
the Application is wholly misconceived, frivolous and devoid of merit, having
been filed with a mala fide intention to harass Respondent No. 1 and delay the
proceedings.

6. It is submitted that the principle of Audi alteram partem safeguards the right
of Respondent No. 1 to file its Reply and effectively defend the proceedings,

СC12502605

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

and by the present Application, the Complainants seek to curtail such right by
opposing the Reply filed on 11.03.2026, which is impermissible; any such
restriction is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Section 38(2) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates that
this Hon’ble Authority be guided by natural justice and afford fair
opportunity to all parties.

7. It is submitted that the Affidavit in Reply was filed prior to the hearing dated

11. 03.2026 without seeking any adjournment, and therefore no grievance lies
against Respondent No. 1; in any event, the minimal delay, if any, owing to
collation of records, cannot justify rejection of the Reply, particularly in view
of Section 38(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
and the principles of natural justice.

8. With reference to the averments regarding the medical condition of
Complainant No. 2, it is submitted that Respondent No. 1 became aware of the
same only upon receipt of the captioned Complaint, and the subsequent
reliance on such medical condition to level allegations against Respondent No.
1 and prejudice the proceedings is misconceived and cannot be permitted,
particularly in view of Section 38(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, which mandates fair and unbiased adjudication in
accordance with principles of natural justice.

9. It is submitted that the allegation that the Reply is delayed and repetitive is
specifically denied, and a perusal of the Reply along with annexed documents
demonstrates that the Complainants have misrepresented and suppressed
material facts necessary for proper adjudication of the Complaint; it is further
submitted that the Complainants have approached this Hon’ble Authority
with incomplete and selective disclosures, thereby attempting to mislead the
proceedings, which conduct is impermissible, particularly in view of Section
38(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, mandating

СC12502605

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

fair and transparent adjudication in accordance with principles of natural
justice

10. It is submitted that at all material times, during the conciliation proceedings,
Respondent No. 1 participated in good faith with a bona fide intention to
explore amicable resolution and had offered refund of the amounts with 2%
deduction as permissible in law and as elaborated in the Reply filed on

11. 03.2026; however, the said offer was refused by the Complainants, and
therefore the conciliation proceedings failed due to the Complainants’
unwillingness to adopt a reasonable approach, which cannot be attributed to
Respondent No. 1.

11. It is submitted that the present Application is a calculated attempt to harass
and pressurize Respondent No. 1 into acceding to unlawful and untenable
demands of the Complainants and to interfere with its right to defend the
proceedings, so as to secure an unwarranted advantage and unjust
enrichment, which is impermissible in law, particularly in view of Section
38(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 mandating
fair and equitable adjudication in accordance with principles of natural justice.

12. It is submitted that the balance of convenience lies in favour of Respondent
No. 1, as no prejudice would be caused to the Complainants if the Reply dated

11. 03.2026 is taken on record and the proceedings are contested in accordance
with law; whereas, entertaining the present Application would cause serious
prejudice to Respondent No. 1 by depriving it of a fair opportunity to present
its defence and place relevant facts on record, which is contrary to Section
38(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the
principles of natural justice.

13. It is submitted that the Complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs
sought in the present Application, as the same is misconceived, unjustified

СC12502605

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

and not maintainable in law, being contrary to the principles of natural justice
and the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016;
the Reply filed by Respondent No. 1 on 11.03.2026 was bona fide and prior to
the scheduled hearing, without seeking any extension of time or acting in
disregard of the proceedings, and therefore the prayers in the Application are
baseless and untenable, particularly in view of Section 38(2) of the Act.

14. It is submitted that if the reliefs sought in the present Application are granted,
Respondent No. 1 would suffer grave and irreparable loss and prejudice by
being denied a fair opportunity to defend the proceedings and place its case
on record, which would cause irreversible harm not compensable in any
manner; hence, it is just and necessary that the Application be dismissed in the
interest of justice, particularly in view of Section 38(2) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the principles of natural justice.

15. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both parties and
perused the material available on record. The limited issue for consideration
in the present Application is whether the Reply dated 11.03.2026 filed by
Respondent No. 1 deserves to be taken on record despite the delay beyond the
timeline prescribed in the Roznama dated 20.01.2026.

16. It is an admitted position that this Authority had directed the Respondents to
file their reply on or before 09.02.2026; however, the Reply came to be filed on

11. 03.2026. Thus, there is a delay in filing the same. At the same time, it is also
noted that the said Reply was filed prior to the hearing scheduled on

11. 03.2026 and no adjournment was sought by Respondent No. 1 for filing the
same.

17. The principle of audi alteram partem forms the foundation of natural justice,
which requires that each party be afforded a fair opportunity to present its
case. Denial of an opportunity to file a reply would amount to denial of the

СC12502605

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

right to defend, which may prejudice the adjudication on merits. Though
timelines are to be adhered to, procedural prescriptions cannot be applied in a
manner so as to defeat substantive justice.

18. In the present case, the delay, though not insignificant, cannot be said to have
caused irreparable prejudice to the Complainants, particularly when the Reply
was already on record prior to the date of hearing. Further, the contention of
Respondent No. 1 that time was required to collect relevant records appears
plausible considering the nature of disputes before this Authority.

19. At the same time, the conduct of Respondent No. 1 in not adhering to the
timeline prescribed by this Authority cannot be lightly ignored. Procedural
discipline is essential for expeditious adjudication, and any deviation
therefrom must be viewed seriously.

20. In the interest of justice, equity and fair play, this Authority is of the view that
the Reply dated 11.03.2026 is required to be taken on record, subject to
imposing costs on Respondent no.1 payable to the Complainant.

21. Accordingly, while permitting the Reply to be taken on record, the
Complainants ought to be granted an opportunity to file rejoinder and
additional submissions, if any, so that no prejudice is caused to them. This
would ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and enable
effective adjudication of the Complaint on merits. Hence, I passed following
order.

ORDER
The Application is allowed as follows: -
A. The Reply filed by Respondent No. 1 is taken on record, subject to payment
of costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainants for the delay in filing the Reply.
B. The Complainant is at liberty of filing Rejoinder and additional

СC12502605

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

submissions, if any.

Date:18.05.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.05.18 15:54:36
+05'30'