Complaint No. CC12600070


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI


Complaint No. CC12600070

Rajiv Dilipkumar Pandit


... Complainant

Versus

Poonam Lifestyle


... Respondent

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P99000005516


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

Ld. Adv. Shubham Maharana appeared for the complainant – through VC.
Mr. Sumit Jha, Representative appeared for the respondent – through VC.


INTERIM ORDER


(Order Pronounced on Monday, 6th April 2026)
(Matter reserved for orders on 23-02-2026)
(Hearing Through Hybrid Mode)

1. The complainant above named has filed this online complaint before the MahaRERA
on 05-01-2026, mainly seeking directions from the MahaRERA, to the respondent, to
register the agreement for sale and also to pay compensation for delay, as prescribed
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of a flat bearing No. D-
102, on 1st Floor, in the building No. 6 ( hereinafter referred to as the said flat), in the
respondent – promoter’s registered project known as “Poonam Park” bearing
MahaRERA registration No. P99000005516 located at Palghar (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘said project’).

2. This complaint was heard by MahaRERA on 23-02-2026 as per Circular no. 49 dated
12-09-2025 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of complaints through Hybrid Mode.
Both the parties have been issued prior intimation of this hearing, and they were also
informed to file their written submissions if any. Accordingly, both parties appeared
and made their submissions. The MahaRERA heard the submissions of both parties


Complaint No. CC12600070


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

and also perused the available record.

3. After hearing the arguments of the complainant, the following Roznamas were
recorded in this complaint:–
i)
On 11-02-2026
“The complainant is present. The respondent is absent. The respondent has
uploaded an application on 05-01-2026 referring to the order of the Authority dated
08-12-2025. The respondent contends that as per the said order, this complaint may
also be adjourned sine die. The complainant may file a rejoinder to the said
application within a period of one week i.e. by 18-02-2026. The matter is adjourned
to 23-02-2026 for final arguments.”

ii)
On 23-02-2026:
“Both the parties are present. The respondent has already filed an application
contending that as per the order of MahaRERA dated 08-12-2025, the matter may
be adjourned sine die. Accordingly, the complainant may file its rejoinder to the
said application within a period of one week i.e. by 02-03-2026 subsequent to
which, the matter will be reserved for orders as per the earlier order of MahaRERA
dated 08-12-2025.”

4. MahaRERA has perused the available record.

5. It is the case of the complainant that, relying on the representations of the respondent,
he agreed to purchase the said flat in the said project for a total consideration of Rs.
9,67,750/- and has paid approximately Rs. 8,36,426/- (about 90% of the
consideration). Despite such payments and repeated requests, the respondent has
failed to execute and register the Agreement for Sale and has also not completed the
project within the agreed timeline. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed the
present complaint seeking directions for execution and registration of the Agreement
for Sale and compensation for delayed possession.

6. The respondent has filed an application dated 05-01-2026 seeking stay of the present
proceedings or transfer of the complaint to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar. It


Complaint No. CC12600070


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

has denied the allegations and submitted that delays in the project were due to factors
beyond its control, including delay in environmental clearance, approvals, and
Occupation Certificate (OC) by the planning authority. It has further stated that
although construction was completed, possession could not be handed over due to
such delays. The respondent has also submitted that multiple civil and criminal
proceedings, including FIRs and actions by the EOW, have resulted in attachment of
its properties under the MPID Act, thereby restraining it from completing the project
or refunding amounts. It has contended that matters relating to such attachments fall
within the jurisdiction of the MPID Court. Relying on ongoing proceedings before
the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar and related orders of the Hon’ble High Court
and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent has sought transfer or stay of the present
complaint.

7. The MahaRERA has examined the submissions made by both parties and has
perused the available record. In the present case, as pointed out by the respondent
during the course of hearing, MahaRERA has noticed from the record that, in respect
of the said project, based on the facts cited by the respondent regarding pending
proceedings before the MPID Court as well as other Courts, MahaRERA has already
passed an

INTERIM ORDER

dated 08-12-2025 in
Complaint No. CC12500011
filed by
another allottee in the said project, seeking reliefs under the provisions of RERA for
refund along with interest and compensation.

8. The relevant portion of the said

INTERIM ORDER

dated 8-12-2025 reads as under:-
“9. The MahaRERA has examined the submissions made by both parties and has also perused the available
record. The complainant, who is an allottee in the project registered by the respondent, has filed the present
complaint under Section 31 of the RERA seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him along with interest
and compensation, alleging delay in handing over possession of the flat on the agreed date as stipulated in
the registered agreement for sale dated 27-09-2011. The complainant has contended that under the said
agreement, the respondent had agreed to hand over possession of the said flat to him on or before 31-03-
2013, but failed to do so. Hence, he has sought reliefs under Section 18 of the RERA towards refund along
with interest and compensation.

10. The respondent, on the other hand, has refuted the claims and contentions of the complainant by filing
an application on record of MahaRERA, citing various reasons for the delay in completion of the project.
The respondent has further contended that four FIRs and consequential proceedings initiated by the EOW


Complaint No. CC12600070


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

are pending against it. It has also relied upon the letter dated 15-02-2019 issued by the EOW restraining
registration of agreements for sale, along with other pending proceedings before the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The respondent has also prayed to (i) stay of the present
complaint, or (ii) transfer of the complaint to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar. The respondent has
contended that as the project stands attached under Section 7 of the MPID Act, there exists a statutory bar
on its ability to either complete the project or refund monies to the flat purchasers, and that only the
Designated Court under the MPID Act has jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to release of
attachments or refund of deposits. Hence, it has prayed for allowing its application.

11. The complainant, despite directions issued during the hearing on 09-09-2025, has not filed any rejoinder
opposing the said application of the respondent or disputing the pendency of the parallel proceedings before
various courts.

12. Be that as it may, in the present case, the record shows that multiple proceedings affecting the
respondent’s assets and the said project are pending before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar as well as
the Hon’ble High Court, including applications for discharge and challenges to attachment orders under the
MPID Act. The outcome of these proceedings has a direct bearing on the reliefs sought in the present
complaint towards refund along with interest and compensation. Furthermore, the MahaRERA has also
noticed that since the project stands attached under the MPID Act and the jurisdiction over such
attachment lies exclusively with the Designated Court under the MPID Act, adjudication of this complaint
at this stage may result in multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting directions. Moreso, in the absence of
any rejoinder or objection from the complainant, the application of the respondent remains undisputed and
unchallenged.

13. In view of the above, and considering the pendency of parallel proceedings under the MPID Act which
directly affect the subject matter of the present complaint, the MahaRERA finds it just, proper, and in the
interest of justice to adjourn the present complaint sine die until final disposal of the proceedings pending
before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar.

14. Consequently, the present complaint is adjourned sine die, pending final adjudication of the proceedings
under the MPID Act before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar. Liberty is granted to either party to apply
for restoration or revival of this complaint upon disposal of the said proceedings or upon cessation of the
attachment affecting the project.”

9. From the aforesaid

INTERIM ORDER

, it is clear that MahaRERA has taken into
consideration the pendency of parallel proceedings under the MPID Act, which have
a direct bearing on the subject matter of the said complaint. Accordingly, in order to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the possibility of conflicting decisions,
MahaRERA found it just, proper, and in the interest of justice to adjourn the said


Complaint No. CC12600070


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

complaint sine die until final disposal of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble
Sessions Court, Palghar. The said complaint was accordingly adjourned sine die, with
liberty granted to both parties to revive the proceedings upon disposal of the said
proceedings or upon cessation of the attachment affecting the project.

10. However, in the present complaint also, the complainant, though seeking reliefs in
the nature of execution and registration of the agreement for sale, possession, and
interest under the provisions of RERA, is seeking such reliefs in respect of the very
same project. Therefore, the said pending proceedings under the MPID Act, which
affect the said project, have a direct bearing on the adjudication of the present
complaint as well.

11. In view of the above, and for the reasons recorded herein, the present complaint is
also adjourned sine die, pending final adjudication of the proceedings under the
MPID Act before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Palghar. However, liberty is granted to
the complainant to apply for restoration or revival of this complaint upon disposal of
the said proceedings or upon cessation of the attachment affecting the said project.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA
MAHESH
DINKAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by MAHESH
DINKAR PATHAK
Date: 2026.04.06
17:25:13 +05'30'