BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

                                                MUMBAI

                                  SUO MOTO COMPLAINT NO : 1112018

Secretary, MahaRERA Versus Jyoti Buitders
                              MahaRERA Reg. No: P51800006438 Jyoti Sukriti

Coram: Shri Gautam Chatterjee, Hon'bte Chairperson
                                                  Order
                                              6thMarch 2018

   1. Section 11(2) of the Reat Estate (Regutation and Devetopment) Act, 2016, states that 'The
       advertisement or prospectus issued or pubtished by the promoter sha[[ mention prominentty the
       website address of the Authority, wherein att detaits of the registered project have been entered
       and inctude the registration number obtained from the Authority and such other matters incidental
       thereto'


   2. With a view to having uniformity, MahaRERA had through scrotts on its website
       httDs: / / maharera. mahaontine .eov.in and atso by sending emails, informed att the promoters of
       registered project, the manner MahaRERA Regn No. and MahaRERA website address should 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 violated 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 catted upon on 6th March 2018, by a
       notice, to exptain why they shoutd not be penalized for the atteged viotation of the provisions of
       the Act.

   5. On the date of the hearing, the Developer was appeared. They accepted that the alteged viotations
       of the provisions of the Act are totatly inadvertent and they did not have any intention to show
       non-comptiance towards the provisions of the Act or rutes or regulations made there under. They
       offered unconditional apotogy and requested of not imposing any penalty for the atteged viotation.
       They have further provided an undertaking that no such viotation of the Act would happen in the
       future and the promoter witt strictly comply with the provisions of the Act, rutes, regu[ations and
       orders/circulars issued there under.

                                                                                                       1t2
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 regutations made thereunder, he
   shatt be tiabte to a penatty which may extend up to five per cent. of the estimated cost of the reat
   estate project as determined by the Authority.

7. MahaRERA accepts the contention of the promoter that the aforesaid vio[ations of the provisions
   of the Act have happened unintentionalty. Therefore, onty a token penatty, under the provisions
   of section 61 of the Act, is imposed and the Promoter is hereby directed to pay a penatty of Rs
   2,00,0001- (Rupees two takh onty) and further warned toensurethat such viotation is not repeated
   in future.




                                                                                  (Ga      Chatterjee)
                                                                               Chai        , MahaRERA




                                                                                                    2/7