BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020 1. COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000385436 IIFL …COMPLAINANT/S VS M/S. SHREEJI ENTERPRISES …RESPONDENT a/w 2. COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000395694 WOODSHIRE FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION …COMPLAINANT/S VS KAMBAR CONSTRUCTIONS …RESPONDENT a/w 3. COMPLAINT NO.: CC12401273 BHANWARLAL MOHATTA …COMPLAINANT/S VS 1. KAMBAR CONSTRUCTIONS 2. M/s. SHREEJI ENTERPRISES …RESPONDENT MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700012252 4. SUO MOTO CASE NO. 209 OF 2021 WOODSHIRE …PROJECT NAME VS M/S. SHREEJI ENTERPRISES …PROMOTER MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700012252 a/w FALCO RIVERSHIRE …PROJECT NAME AANYA REALTORS …PROMOTER MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700005912 a/w FALCO CHESHIRE …PROJECT NAME AANYA REALTORS …PROMOTER MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700006040 a/w FALCO PEARLSHIRE …PROJECT NAME AANYA REALTORS …PROMOTER Page 1 of 16 MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700011065 a/w PINESHIRE …PROJECT NAME AANYA RESIDENCIES …PROMOTER MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700014064 Order November 27th, 2025 (Date of hearing – 08.04.2025 and 04.06.2025 - matter was reserved for order from 08.04.2025(Sr. Nos. 1 and 4) and 16.06.2025(Sr. Nos. 2 and 3)) Coram: Manoj Saunik, Chairperson, MahaRERA Advocate Jeet Madnani present for M/s. Shreeji Enterprises. Advocate Indrajeet Hingane present for IIFL. Mr. Rohit Chugani present for Kambar Constructions Pvt Ltd. None present for complainant at Sr. No. 2 1. The complainant at Sr. No. 1 is a financial institution, the complainant at Sr. No. 2 claims to be association of allottees of the captioned project at Sr No 1 to 3, the complainant at Sr. No. 3 is a home buyer / allottee within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “RERA”) and the Respondent namely M/s. Shreeji Enterprises Pvt Ltd is registered as the Promoter/Developer within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the said Act of the Project namely “WOODSHIRE” under section 5 of the said Act bearing MAHARERA Project Registration No. P51700012252 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Project”). The respondent namely Kambar Constructions Pvt Ltd is the erstwhile promoter of the same project. 2. The complaint at Sr. No. 1 seeks revocation as well as change of promoter under section 15 of the Act in the captioned project number i.e. P51700012252. In view of the issue no 1 recorded in the report dated 20.06.2024 submitted by the then Chief Consultant, MahaRERA Shri Sanjay Deshmukh, there are 4 other project numbers recorded in the Roznamas and hereinabove along with the Page 2 of 16 captioned matter herein at Sr. No. 4 - Suo Motu 209 of 2021. It is recorded in the roznama of the meeting dated 26.10.2023 that Mr. Rohit Chugani, partner of Aanya Realtors, Aanya Residencies has filed a submission for exclusion of other four project numbers which he states to be erroneously included in the present proceedings. After considering the submissions of the parties and facts of the cases, it is observed that the four project numbers recorded hereinabove except the captioned project number P51700012252, do not have any direct bearing on these cases at Sr. No. 1 to 4 herein. Thus, this fact is taken into consideration while passing this order and for the sake of clarity it is hereby recorded that the matters are Sr. No. 1 to 4 only pertain to the captioned project number P51700012252. 3. On the MahaRERA project registration webpage the proposed completion date is mentioned as 22.12.2022, the revised date of completion is mentioned as 22.12.2022, and the extended date of completion is mentioned as 31.12.2025. 4. The complainants are seeking the following reliefs: SR. COMPLAINT NO. & RELIEFS SOUGHT NO. DATE OF FILING “a. This Hon'ble Authority be pleased to exercise powers vested unto Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and revoke the registration of the Project Registration No. P51700012252 as standing in favour of the Respondent- Shreeji Enterprise. b. This Hon'ble Authority be pleased to exercise powers vested unto Section 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and permit transfer and assign of the rights and CC006000000385436 liabilities in the Project Registration No. P51700012252. 1. 17.05.2023 c. This Hon'ble Authority in the alternative be pleased to permit the applicant Secured Creditor- IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD. to put to sale the unsold mortgaged inventory/flats to the prospective buyers/open market in order to recover/ make good its outstanding default loan amount. d. For such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” “We are requesting the support of most members to re-instate the 2. CC006000000395694 Original Developer. As on date, 41 of the 115 members have 09.05.2023 already given their Consent. We are in the process of obtaining the Page 3 of 16 Consent of more members which shall be submitted to Hon’ble MahaRERA before the date of the Hearing. Sir, we wish to re- appoint the Original Developer M/s Kambar Constructions u/s 7(3) of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and work towards the completion of our Project in the interest of all Allotees, with liberty to file the case again before Hon’ble MahaRERA in the event of any default by the Developer on the terms and conditions of the Consent Terms. The Developer shall continue to remain liable and responsible for all other matters in connection with the Project, in continuation with the original understanding subject to matters agreed and stated in the Consent Terms.” “a) That the respondent may be directed to execute the sale agreement as per Section 13 of MAHARERA Act. b) That the Respondents be directed to give the possession of the apartments as mentioned in Para 4 of the facts of the case. c) That the Respondents be directed to pay the interest as per provision of MAHARERA Act from the agreed date of possession till the date of actual possession. CC12401273 d) The complainant should also be compensated for the legal 3. 29.12.2024 expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- which he has incurred in filing the complaint. e) Any other and further order in the interest of justice.” “The complainant request before the Hon'ble MahaRERA to instruct the Respondent No.2 to execute the Agreement for Sale in name of Complainant for the other 4 units, 104, 605, 809 and 1206 and issue the necessary directions to register the flats.” 5. The captioned complaints at Sr. Nos. 1 and 4 were heard on 08.04.2025 and the captioned complaints at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 were heard on 04.06.2025, wherein the following roznamas were recorded by this Authority: SR. COMPLAINT NO. & NOS ROZNAMA RECORDED DATE OF FILING . “Heard all parties. The Advocate for complainant submits that CC006000000385436 complainant’s name is wrongly mentioned as Arshil Shah 1. 17.05.2023 instead of IIFL. Thus, IT team is directed to make the correction. Matter is reserved for order.” CC006000000395694 2. 09.05.2023 “Both parties are directed to file their pleadings. Parties are at liberty to file written submissions, if any, by 13.06.2025. The matters will be reserved for orders from 16.06.2025.” CC12401273 3. 29.12.2024 Page 4 of 16 6. The brief submissions of the complainants in complaints at Sr. No. 1 to 3 are as follows: COMPLAINT SR. NO. & DATE SUBMISSIONS NO. OF FILING 1. The Secured Creditor, IIFL Home Finance Ltd., a registered Housing Finance Company and lender to the Woodshire project, refers to its rights and position recognized by the Hon’ble MahaRERA in Orders dated 05.11.2021 passed in Complaint Nos. CC006000000000394, CC006000000056309, CC006000000056719, and CC006000000057759. 2. Pursuant to the said Orders, as the erstwhile promoter M/s Kambar Constructions was found to be in breach of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”), multiple complaints were filed concerning the project. 3. Being the sole secured lender and due to the failure of M/s Kambar Constructions to complete construction, IIFL Home Finance Ltd. proposed and appointed M/s Shreeji Enterprises as the new promoter under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.11.2020, executed on the terms and conditions recorded therein. 4. Based on IIFL’s proposal and the consent of the allottees and the Resident Welfare Association (RWA), the Hon’ble MahaRERA, vide Order dated 23.12.2021 in Suo-Motu Case No. 209 of 2021, appointed M/s Shreeji Enterprises as the new promoter and simultaneously revoked the registration of M/s Kambar Constructions under Section CC006000000 7 of the Act. 1. 385436 5. As per the said Order, the Authority fixed December 2022 as the 17.05.2023 deadline for completion of the project. However, despite the lapse of more than four months beyond the stipulated date, construction progress has been negligible, and the project remains incomplete. 6. Considering the stagnant progress, the Resident Welfare Association’s interest, and the promoter’s non-compliance, M/s Shreeji Enterprises was found to be in material breach of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.11.2020, thereby attracting grounds for termination. 7. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2023, was issued to M/s Shreeji Enterprises calling upon them to explain within ten days: (i) why their appointment should not be terminated as contractor of the project; (ii) why ₹2,65,00,000/- with 3% p.a. penal interest should not be recovered for payment defaults; (iii) why action under Sections 7 and 15 of the Act should not be taken to terminate their promoter status; and (iv) why penalty should not be imposed for project delays. 8. The said notice was also forwarded to the concerned allottees and the Association and duly served on the Respondent through Page 5 of 16 WhatsApp. 9. Shreeji’s Reply dated 10.04.2023 failed to provide satisfactory justification or documentary evidence for the delay or non-payment, instead containing unsubstantiated allegations. 10. Subsequently, IIFL issued a rejoinder letter dated 17.04.2023, reiterating the termination of the MOU dated 10.11.2020 and calling upon the respondent to vacate the site within three days and hand over peaceful possession. Non-compliance was notified as inviting legal action. No compliance has been made till date. 11. The secured creditor emphasizes that the RERA Act was enacted to ensure fair regulation and transparency in real estate development and to protect consumers’ interests by mandating timely completion and delivery of projects. 12. The Shreeji’s failure to complete construction within the agreed period constitutes a violation of the MOU dated 10.11.2020 as well as the provisions and objectives of the Act. 13. The respondent’s non-performance and delay have caused severe hardship to the homebuyers and to IIFL Home Finance Ltd., which had granted development rights to the respondent under the agreed terms. 14. The provisions of Section 7 of the RERA Act stand clearly attracted, and the secured creditor therefore prays that the project’s registration be revoked and the Order dated 23.12.2021 in Suo-Motu Case No. 209 of 2021 be suitably modified. 1. The allottees of the Falco Woodshire project state that construction stopped between 2016 and 2019 due to disputes with the Original Developer, M/s Kambar Constructions, leading to their resignation in May 2019. Owing to unpaid dues, IIFL Home Finance Ltd. initiated SARFAESI proceedings and took possession of the mortgaged property in March 2020. 2. Subsequently, based on alleged consent from 76 out of 115 allottees, IIFL appointed M/s Shreeji Enterprises as the new Developer on 19 November 2020, which was noted by MahaRERA in its order dated CC006000000 23 December 2021. 2. 395694 3. The members now seek inspection of the list of consenting allottees 09.05.2023 and assert that Shreeji Enterprises has failed to make progress despite the revised completion timeline of December 2022. 4. They further point to multiple breaches of the MoU dated 10 November 2020, including non-payment of financial obligations to IIFL, as acknowledged in IIFL’s termination letter of March 2023 and in IIFL’s petition for withdrawal of Shreeji Enterprises. 5. Due to continued non-performance, a new association of allottees has been formed, which has resolved to reinstate the Original Developer. 6. Forty-one members have submitted written consent, with more Page 6 of 16 consents expected. The members therefore seek re-appointment of M/s Kambar Constructions under Section 7(3) of the RERA Act, subject to Consent Terms, and propose a new possession date of 31.12.2024. 7. They request that MahaRERA consider the attached Consent Terms. 1. The Complainant, Mr. Bhanwar Lal Mohatta, an allottee in the “Woodshire” project, had originally booked five flats—Nos. 101, 104, 605, 809, and 1206. 2. A prior complaint, No. CC006000000192909, was decided by MahaRERA through Order dated 31 October 2023 passed by Hon’ble Chairperson Shri Ajoy Mehta, holding that separate complaints must be filed for each flat and directing execution of the Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 101, which has since been registered. 3. Pursuant to the order, the complainant has now filed individual complaints for the remaining four flats, the facts being identical except for the flat numbers. 4. The erstwhile promoter, M/s Kambar Constructions (Respondent No. 1), had uploaded the list of allottees over five years ago, showing the Complainant’s name against the said five flats at serial numbers 9, 12, 58, 80, and 113. 5. The Complainant has made full payments for all flats, acknowledged by Allotment Letters issued by Respondent No. 1. CC12401273 3. 6. However, Agreements for Sale could not be executed for the 29.12.2024 remaining four flats as M/s IIFL Home Finance Ltd. (IIFL) had taken over the project from Respondent No. 1. 7. Subsequently, responsibilities were shifted to M/s Shreeji Enterprises (Respondent No. 2), now the registered promoter under Section 15 of the RERA Act. 8. Respondent No. 2 has approvals only up to the 7th floor and accordingly raised demands for units below that level, including those allotted to the Complainant, which he paid on 20 December 2023 via NEFT to their HDFC Bank account. 9. IIFL, as project owner, has also received payments from the Complainant through HDFC Bank cheques that were duly encashed. The Complainant relies upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP & Ors. in support of his contentions. During a site meeting held on 12 July 2025 with Mr. Sandeep Patil of Shreeji Enterprises, he was assured that registration instructions would be emailed and was requested to extend a loan to help settle IIFL’s dues, with assurances of support for project completion. 7. The brief submissions of the respondent-promoter i.e. M/s. Shreeji Enterprises are as follows: Page 7 of 16 COMPLAINT SR. NO. & DATE SUBMISSIONS NO. OF FILING 1. The Respondent raises preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the application, asserting that these issues must be decided before considering the merits. 2. That there is no breach of RERA provisions and the MahaRERA lacks jurisdiction over disputes between a Housing Finance Company and a borrower, and that IIFL is not a promoter but merely a secured creditor under SARFAESI with limited authority to nominate a developer. 3. That the project registration already stands extended until 31 December 2024 and that the MOU is the only binding contract, which cannot be adjudicated under RERA. The Respondent also alleges that the applicant has filed misleading documents, accepted monies after the alleged termination, and raised disputed factual issues. 4. It is submitted that, as IIFL is an RBI-regulated Housing Finance Company, it falls outside RERA’s scope, which was enacted for the protection of allottees and not for resolving lender–developer financial disputes. 5. That the reliefs sought pertaining to recovery of money and termination of an MOU are civil in nature and therefore not CC006000000385 maintainable before MahaRERA. 1. 436 17.05.2023 6. The Respondent states that it became the new promoter with consent from 76 out of 115 allottees, in compliance with Section 15 of RERA and as recorded in MahaRERA’s Order dated 23 December 2021 in Suo Motu Case No. 209 of 2021, while IIFL acted only as a facilitator under SARFAESI. 7. If aggrieved by the 2021 order, IIFL should have approached the Appellate Tribunal, as RERA provides no mechanism for a finance company to seek revocation through a Miscellaneous Application. 8. MahaRERA’s order dated 11.03.2024 already extended the project’s registration until 31.12.2024, and the Respondent asserts that the project is progressing within this timeline. 9. That revocation can occur only under Section 7(1) upon satisfaction of its conditions and only at the instance of an association of allottees or through MahaRERA’s suo motu action. 10. That the project is over 90% complete, with finishing work ongoing, and applications for Completion and Occupancy Certificates already submitted, supported by photographs and documents. 11. That revocation would prejudice allottees and that the application is malicious, intended to exert pressure and indirectly reinstate the old promoter. Page 8 of 16 12. This is illustrated by IIFL’s inconsistent OTS proposals—₹1.40 crore to the old promoter and ₹2.66 crore to the Respondent. The registered Woodshire Welfare Association has expressed confidence in the Respondent’s progress through its letter dated 16 May 2023. The Respondent also paid ₹50,00,000 to IIFL via Demand Draft dated 26 October 2023, which was accepted after the alleged termination, indicating that the MOU remained operative. 13. The Respondent therefore submits that the Miscellaneous Application is without substance, outside the jurisdiction of MahaRERA, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. CC006000000395 2. 694 “No Submissions provided.” 09.05.2023 1. That respondent No. 1 – Kambar Constructions is the erstwhile developer, while Respondent No. 2 became the new promoter with consent from 76 of 115 allottees pursuant to Section 15 of the RERA Act and the MahaRERA Order dated 23 December 2021 in Suo- Motu Case No. 209 of 2021, which remains valid. 2. The complainant had earlier filed Complaint No. CC006000000192909 concerning the same project and the same five flats—Nos. 101, 104, 605, 809, and 1206—which was decided by order dated 31 October 2023. MahaRERA had noted in that order that the complainant failed to provide any agreement or proof of payment for the four flats other than Flat No. 101 and therefore adjudicated only in respect of Flat No. 101. 3. Respondent No. 2 complied with the order and executed a fresh Agreement for Sale for Flat No. 101. This followed cancellation of a CC12401273 3. 29.12.2024 prior registered agreement dated 30 July 2013 under which Respondent No. 1 had already sold Flat No. 101 to a third party. The subsequent non-compliance application was disposed of by order dated 09.05.2025. 4. That the present complaint, seeking identical reliefs on identical facts, is barred by res judicata and constitutes re-litigation without any new cause of action. 5. That the complainant has again failed to produce credible payment proof for Flats Nos. 104, 605, 809, and 1206. Respondent No. 2 denies receiving any consideration for these alleged bookings. It is submitted that without proof of payment, no enforceable obligation arises to execute agreements under RERA. 6. The complainant has now produced alleged allotment letters for the four flats, which were not filed earlier despite opportunity, raising suspicion of collusion with the old promoter, Respondent Page 9 of 16 No. 1. The allotment letters lack payment corroboration and were issued without Respondent No. 2’s involvement or knowledge. 7. Given the above circumstances, Respondent No. 2 submits that the complaint is meritless, barred by res judicata, and liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. Pursuant to the directions in the roznama dated 27.03.2024, the then Chief Consultant, MahaRERA Shri Sanjay Deshmukh submitted report dated 20.06.2024 which is annexed to this order for ease of reference. 9. Based upon the facts and submissions recorded hereinabove, the issues that need to be considered are: A. Whether the application by IIFL (matter at Sr. No. 1 herein) for change of promoter is maintainable? B. Whether the complaint at Sr. No. 2 is maintainable? C. Whether reliefs can be granted in complaint at Sr. No. 3 under the provisions of the Act? 10. With respect to the issue framed hereinabove at para 9 A it is pertinent to note that a promoter cannot transfer or assign his majority rights and liabilities in a real estate project to a third party without obtaining prior written consent of minimum two-thirds allottees (excluding the promoter’s own units). The consent must be in writing and specific to the proposed transfer. In the instant application at Sr. No. 1, the IIFL has not placed on record any consent of allottees to initiate the proceedings for change of promoter. 11. IIFL has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority solely on the basis of an alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding executed inter se between IIFL and Shreeji. The said allegations arise exclusively from a private commercial arrangement between two independent entities and do not relate to any statutory obligation owed to the allottees under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Page 10 of 16 12. It is further noted that IIFL has come into the picture only by virtue of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, and its role is confined to that of a secured creditor or an assignee acting under the said statute. Such a position does not confer upon IIFL the status of a ‘promoter’ within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the Act, nor does it impose upon IIFL any of the statutory duties or liabilities envisaged under RERA. Consequently, IIFL lacks the requisite locus to maintain a complaint before this Hon’ble Authority in respect of matters pertaining to the project. 13. This Authority is vested with a jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes that arise within the statutory framework of the Act, pertaining to the rights, duties, and liabilities of promoters, allottees, and real estate agents. The Authority opines that it is not the function of this forum to examine or enforce the performance of internal MoUs or commercial understandings between private entities, particularly when the complainant itself is not a promoter and has entered the project only through SARFAESI proceedings. 14. A promoter cannot transfer or assign his majority rights and liabilities in a real estate project to a third party without obtaining prior written consent of minimum two-thirds allottees (excluding the promoter’s own units). The consent must be in writing and specific to the proposed transfer. Accordingly, a complaint founded merely on the alleged violation of an MoU between IIFL and Shreeji is inherently not maintainable under Section 31 of the Act, as it discloses no cause of action under RERA, does not demonstrate any breach of promoter obligations, and is filed by an entity that does not fall within the statutory definition of a promoter. In view of the above observations the issue framed at para no 9 A is answered in the negative. 15. The complainant at Sr. No. 2 is filed seeking reinstatement of the erstwhile promoter. It is pertinent to note that any authorisation from the association of Page 11 of 16 allottees is not placed on record to ascertain the authenticity of the complaint at Sr. No. 2. In absence of any consent from the allottees on record, the Authority cannot proceed with the adjudication of the matter for revocation or change of promoter of the captioned project. Thus, in view thereof, the complaint at Sr. No. 2 herein is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and the issue framed at para no 9 B is answered in the negative. 16. The complainant at Sr. No. 3 approached the Authority vide complaint number CC006000000192909 which was disposed vide order dated 31.10.2023. The complainant therein sought relief under section 13 for directions to the respondent promoter to execute agreement for sale with respect to five number of flats. The Authority found that supporting documents with respect to only one of the stated flat (Flat no 101) was placed on record and as five different documents of allotment resulted into separate causes of action, the Authority granted reliefs only with respect to Flat no 101, held that the respondent promoter(Erstwhile promoter herein) acted in violation of section 13 and directed the erstwhile promoter to execute agreement for sale with respect to Flat no 101. 17. The complainant subsequently filed a non-compliance application and the same was disposed vide order dated 09.05.2023 by the bench of Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA. It is recorded therein that the respondent no 2 therein (present promoter developer herein i.e. Shreeji Enterprises) has executed and registered the agreement for Flat no 101. The complainant has now approached the Authority again vide complaint at Sr. No. 3 herein for same directions for remaining four flats (Flat nos. 104, 605, 809 & 1206). It is pertinent to note that the complainant at Sr. No. 3 has placed on record two allotment letters dated 23.05.2018 for flat numbers 104 and 605. The allotment letters reflect that each flat has been purchased for total consideration of Rs. 32,40,000/- and the complainant has paid the whole amount. Page 12 of 16 18. As the complainant has paid whole amount of consideration with respect to the two flat nos. 104 and 605 and the promoter has not executed agreement with respect to the same, the present promoter has acted in violation of Section 13 after it has taken charge of the project as the promoter by virtue of order dated 23.12.2021 issued by the Authority in Suo Motu Case no 209 of 2021. The present promoter is under statutory obligation to execute and register agreement with respect to the two flat nos. 104 and 605 and the Authority directs the present promoter to complete the same within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Thus, the issue framed hereinabove at para no 9. C. hereinabove is answered accordingly. 19. It is pertinent to note that in order dated 31.10.2023 issued in the previous complaint no CC006000000192909 filed by the complainant at Sr. No 3 herein, the Authority clearly observed that transactions arising out of separate document of allotment result in to separate causes of action and thus separate complaints needs to be filed for each of the flat. By virtue of the same order, the parties were also acquainted with the fact that supporting documents with respect to all the flats need to be filed in order for the Authority to adjudicate the matter accurately and fairly. It is observed that the complainant has not taken note of the same and has acted in sheer negligence by not producing supporting documents for all the stated remaining four flats as claimed by him and has filed allotment letters with respect to only two flats for which relief is being hereby granted on merits. Also, the complainant at Sr. No. 3 has filed again a single complaint arising out of multiple causes of action. The Authority expresses serious displeasure over this conduct of the complainant at Sr. No. 3 and deems it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on him to be deposited with the Authority within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Additionally, the complainant is directed to deposit with the Authority a payment of Rs 5,000/- towards court fees towards adjudication with respect to the second flat, for which relief is hereby granted. The said deposits to be made vide separate Page 13 of 16 demand drafts drawn in favour of ‘REAL ESTATE REGULATORY FUND’ within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 20. Lastly, the erstwhile promoter has placed on record a list of flats numbers which he states that were allotted by him to the respective original allottees and has been illegitimately sold again by the present promoter to new purchasers. The erstwhile promoter has also placed on record, copies of index 2 of 13 agreements on the basis of which he alleges that these 13 flats were earlier allotted by Kambar Constructions (erstwhile promoter) to original allottees and subsequently they are illegitimately sold by Shreeji through registered agreement to new purchasers without settling he claims of original allottees created through Kambar Constructions. An agreement dated 23.09.2015 is executed between one allottee namely Prism Township Pvt Ltd and Kambar Construction for flat no. 1005 in the captioned project namely Woodshire is placed on record. A copy of index 2 reflecting the sale of same flat in the project Woodshire by present promoter Shreeji to one Mr. Sachin Panchal and Mrs. Aarti Panchal vide agreement dated 28.12.2023 is also placed on record. Upon perusal of these documents there appears to be a dual sale of flat no 1005 by different promoters in charge of the captioned project namely Woodshire at different point of time to different purchasers. There is no explanation provided by the present promoter to clarify or justify the same. 21. Similar submissions were made by the erstwhile promoter in the meeting dated 12.06.2024 under the then Chief Consultant, MahaRERA Shri Sanjay Deshmukh. It is noteworthy that Shreeji was directed to clarify their stand with respect to such flat numbers which were sold again. Shreeji has not placed on record any material or submission to throw light on these allegations raised by erstwhile promoter. 22. The present promoter, M/s. Shreeji Enterprises has not contended or controverted the aforesaid averment and materials placed by the erstwhile Page 14 of 16 promoter and thus, the Authority directs the present promoter to submit an affidavit explaining all the allotments /sale made by them clearly stating whether there is a double sale of any of the apartment(s) in the captioned project or not. The affidavit should include the declaration enumerating each and every detail of sold and unsold units pertaining to the captioned project by M/s. Shreeji Enterprises as on the date of this order. The affidavit should further state all the details of money received by such sale(s) and where such money is deposited along with bank statements. The present promoter is directed to submit the above affidavit within seven days (7 days) from the date of this order. The erstwhile promoter is directed to submit a declaration enumerating the allotments made by him through allotment letter, booking form, agreement, or any other instrument along with authenticated copies of the same issued / executed by him in favour of the original allottees. Till then, the Authority directs the project to be kept in abeyance, and the present promoter is directed not to sell, market, book, advertise or offer for sale, or invite person/s to purchase in any manner any apartment / unit of the captioned project till further orders. FINAL ORDER 23. Therefore, with due considerations to the observations made, evidence put forth by both the parties, the provisions of the Act, the facts and submissions of the parties, the authority passes the following order: A. The application for change of promoter filed by IIFL i.e. the complaint at Sr. No. 1 herein is dismissed. B. The complaint at Sr. No. 2 is dismissed. C. The complaint at Sr. No. 3 is partly allowed with respect to the flat nos. 104 and 605. The present promoter is hereby directed to execute and register agreement with respect to the two flat nos. 104 and 605 with the complainant at Sr. No. 3 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. In order to ensure that all the rights and interests of both the parties Page 15 of 16 are protected the parties are directed to execute the agreement in strict observance of the model form of agreement issued by MahaRERA. D. In view of the observations mentioned in para no 20 to 22 hereinabove, the present promoter and the erstwhile promoter are hereby directed to submit respective affidavits within seven days in manner specifically mentioned hereinabove. E. In view of the observations recorded in para 19 hereinabove, the complainant at Sr. No. 3 is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 20,000/- and court fees of Rs. 5,000/- vide separate demand drafts drawn in favour of ‘REAL ESTATE REGULATORY FUND’, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order F. The Authority hereby directs the Secretary, MahaRERA that the project to be kept in abeyance with immediate effect, and the present promoter is directed not to sell, market, book, advertise or offer for sale, or invite person/s to purchase in any manner, any apartment / unit of the captioned project till further orders. G. The bank holding the project bank account is directed to freeze the bank accounts of the captioned project number P51700012252 until further notice from MahaRERA. H. The concerned Joint Registrar of Assurances having jurisdiction to register Agreement for sale / Sale deed is directed not to register any agreement for sale / Sale deed in respect of the units in the captioned project number P51700012252. I. The copy of this order be sent to all concerned. J. No order as to costs. Manoj Saunik Chairperson, MahaRERA Page 16 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15