BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

                                                 MUMBAI

                                    SUO MOTO COMPLAINT NO 15/2018

Secretary, MahaRERA Versus Tridhaatu Morya, Chembur
                             MahaRERA Reg. No: P51800013775 Avighna

                             Unregistered Project name : Ekadanta, Sumukha
Coram: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Hon'ble Chairperson
                                                  Order
                                             06th March 2018

   1. Section 3(1) of the Rea[ Estate (Regutation and Devetopment) Act, 2016 states that "No promoter
      shatt advertise, market, book, sett or offer for sate, or invite persons to purchase in any manner
      any ptot, apartment or buitding, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any
      ptanning area, without registering the reaI estate project with the ReaI Estate Regutatory Authority
      established under this Act:


   2. With a view to having uniformity, MahaRERA had through scrotts on its website
      httDs:/ / maharera. mahaontine. qov, in and atso by sending emails, informed alt the promoters of
      registered project, the manner MahaRERA Regn No. and MahaRERA website address shoutd be
      disptayed in various advertisements or brochures made by registered promoters.


   3. ln spite of the same, it has come to the notice of MahaRERA that the aforementioned promoter
      has pubtished an advertisement in the newspaper The Times of lndia, Mumbai Saturday, 20th
      January 2018. The mentioned advertisement has prima facie viotated section 3(1) by advertising a
       non-registered project, atong with the registered project P51800013775.


   4. Taking Suo moto cognizance of the matter, the promoter was catted upon on 6rh March 2018, by a
       notice, to exptain why they shoutd not be penatized for the atteged viotation of the provisions of
       the Act.

   5. On the date of the hearing, the promoter appeared and was represented by their advocate. They
       accepted that the atteged viotations of the provisions of the Act are totatty inadvertent and they
       did not have any intention to show non-comptiance towards the provisions of the Act or rutes or
       regutations made there under. They offered unconditiona[ apology and requested of not imposing
       any penatty for the atteged viotation. They have further provided an undertaking that no such
       violation of the Act woutd happen in the future and the promoter wilt strictly compty with the
       provisions of the Act, rules, regutations and orders/circulars issued there under.
                                                                                                       1t7
6. Section 59(1) of the Act states: lf any promoter contravenes the provisions of section 3, he shatt be
   tiabte to a penatty which may extend up to ten per cent. of the estimated cost of the real estate
   project as determined by the Authority.


7. MahaRERA accepts the contention of the promoter that the aforesaid viotations of the provisions
   of the Act have happened unintentionatty. Therefore, only a token penatty, under the provisions
   of section 59(1) of the Act, is imposed and the Promoter is hereby directed to pay a penalty of Rs
   10,00,000/ - (Rupees ten takh onty) and further warned to ensure that such viotation is not repeated
   in future.




                                                                                         m Chatterjee)
                                                                                Chai        , MahaRERA




                                                                                                     z/7