BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

                                               MUMBAI

                                 SUO MOTO COMPLAINT NO : '13/2018

Secretary, MahaRERA Versus The Wadhwa Group
                             MahaRERA Reg. No: P51 800000201, P51 800001 243,
                             p51700008189, P51700010204, P51800001089,

                             Psl 80000191 2, P51 700000095

Coram: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Hon'bte Chairperson
                                                 Order
                                             6rhMarch 2018
   .1. section 11(?) ot the Reat Estate (Regutation and Devetopment) Act, 2016, states that 'The

      advertisement or prospectus issued or pubtished by the promoter shalt mention prominentty the
      website address of the Authority, wherein att detaits of the registered project have been entered
       and include the registration number obtained from the Authority and such other matters incidental
       thereto'


   2. With a view to having uniformity, MahaRERA had through scrotls on its website
       httDs: / / maharera. mahaonlilq eov.in and atso by sending emaits, informed atl 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 Times of lndia, Mumbai Saturday dated 20th
       January, 2018. The mentioned advertisement has prima facie viotated the section 11 (2) of the Act
       by not mentioning the website address of MahaRERA.


   4. Taking suo moto cognizance of the matter, the promoter was called upon on 6th March 2018, by a
       notice, to explain why they shoutd not be penatized for the atleged 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 totatly inadvertent and
                                                                                                     they

       did not have any intention to show non-compliance towards the provisions of the Act or rutes or
       regulations made there under. They offered unconditionat apotogy and requested of not imposing
                                                                                                     1t7
   any penatty for the atteged violation. They have further provided an undertaking that no such
   viotation of the Act woutd happen in the future and the promoter witt strictty comply with the
   provisions of the Act, rutes, regutations and orders/circulars issued there under.


6. Section 61 of the Act states: lf any promoter contravenes any other provisions of this Act, other
   than that provided under section 3 or section 4, or the rules or regulations made thereunder, he
   shatt be tiabte to a penatty which may extend up to five 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 violations of the provisions
   of the Act have happened unintentionalty. Therefore, onty a token penalty, under the provisions
   of section 61 of the Act, is imposed and the Promoter is hereby directed to pay a penatty of Rs
   2,OO,0OO/- (Rupees two takh onty) and further warned to ensure that such viotation is not repeated
   in future.




                                                                                 (Gau am Chatterjee)
                                                                               Chai      , MahaRERA