BEFORE THE

             \{AHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

                                         MUMBAI



                          COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000057847



Rakesh B. Thorat                                                        Complainant




Neptune Developers Ltd                                                    Respondent
MahaRERA Regn. No. P51700010102


Corum: Shri. Cautam Chatteiee, Chairyerson, \{ahaRIrItA


Complainant was himself present.
Respondent was represented by Mr. Sanjay Kotak, Adv.


                                           Order

                                     February 20, 2020



   1. The Complainant has stated that he had booked aPartments bearing nos. 604 and 605
       -n building D8 in the Respondenfs Proiect 'NEPIUNE SWARAryA SECTOR 2'
       situated at Ambivali, Kalyan in June 2010. The ComPlainant alleged that even after
       paying substantial amount towards the consideration P ce, the ResPondent has failed
       to execute and registet the agleement Ior sale Therefore, the ComPlainant Prayed that

       the Respondent be directed to execute and register the agreement for sale or refund
       the amounts paid by them along with interest.


   2. The advocate for the Respondent submitted that though the booking was done in 2014,
       the proiect could not get the building Plan aPprovals from the concemed Planning
       authority and therefore, the Project has not been registered v/ith MahaRERA He also
       stated that the Complainant is not an allottee in the project whose legistrauon number
       has been quoted in the complaint. Further, he submitted that the Respondent had

                                             1/2
   issued rcfund cheques in 2014 because the project was not progressin& however, the
   Complainant chos€ to continue in the said ploject.


3. Since the Respondent does not have the tequisite approvais in Place to have the Proiect
   registered with MahaRERA, no directiorx can be given to the Respondent to execute
   and iegister the agreement for sale Ior the said apartment.



4. In a€cordance with Para 86 of the judgement o{ Hon ble Bombay High Court in Wrl
   Petition N o. 2737/- ll Neelkamal Reoltors. Vs. Union of Iniia, RERA wtll apply after getting

   the project reglstered. Therefore, merits of the otltel 8r:ievances made by the
   Complainant have not been Sone into. The ComPlainant has the liberty to raise the
   same in an appropdate forurnt.



5. Conscquently, thc matter is herebv disPoseLl of
                                                                                             FI

                                                                          Ca      Chatte4ee
                                                                  (Chairperson, MahaRERA)




                                           2/2