Bombay High Court
Vayuputra Realty Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory ... on 29 March, 2022
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: G.S. Patel, Madhav J. Jamdar
9-OSWPL-8713-2022+.DOC
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8713 OF 2022
Vayuputra Realty Pvt Ltd & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ...Respondents
Ors
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8714 OF 2022
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL
DUSANE Mahabal Realty Pvt Ltd & Anr ...Petitioners
Digitally signed by
Versus
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL DUSANE Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ...Respondents
Date: 2022.03.31
15:01:59 +0530 Ors
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8715 OF 2022
Kuber Mall Management Pvt Ltd & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ...Respondents
Ors
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8716 OF 2022
Kesari Realty Pvt Ltd & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ...Respondents
Ors
Page 1 of 5
29th March 2022
9-OSWPL-8713-2022+.DOC
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8717 OF 2022
Aditya Vikaram Bagree & Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ...Respondents
Ors
Mr VR Dhond, Senior Advocate, with Prateek Seksaria, Gaurav
Mehta, Sonali Agrawal, Amin Ali Shaikh i/b Dhruve Liladhar
& Co. for the Petitioners in all WPs.
Ms Deepa Chavan, with Reshma Nathani i/b AK Saxsena, Raksha
Jain for Respondent No. 1 - MahaRERA.
Mr Karl Tamboly, Rutuja Patil, Yehaan Shah i/b Nigandhi Shah &
Himayatullah for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in WPL 8713 of
2022.
Mr Sanjay Jain, with Rutuja Patil, Yohaan Shah i/b Nigandhi Shah
& Himayatullah for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in WPL 8714 of
2022.
Mr Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, with Rutuja Patil, Yohaan
Shah i/b Nigandhi Shah & Himayatullah for Respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 in WPL 8715 of 2022.
Mr Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Rutuja Patil, Yohaan Shah
i/b Nigandhi Shah & Himayatullah for Respondent Nos. 2 to
4 in WPL 8716 of 2022.
Ms Rutuja Patil, with Yohaan Shah i/b Nigandhi Shah &
Himayatullah for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in WPL 8717 of
2022.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 29th March 2022
PC:-
Page 2 of 5
29th March 2022
9-OSWPL-8713-2022+.DOC
1. There is a considerable amount of completely unnecessary controversy about the form of proceedings before the Chairperson of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai, MahaRERA. The Respondents to these petitions, specifcally Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 ("the DB Group") have sought 'deregistration' of a residential project called Turf View. It was supposed to be a premium residential project overlooking the Mahalaxmi Racecourse. The DB Group sold premises in Turf View. The Petitioners bought residential apartments.
2. Mr Chinoy for the DB Group says that the Turf View is being or has been abandoned. It is not going to be developed. Therefore, the DB group has sought 'deregistration'. This is the application made by the DB group to MahaRERA. They applied to MahaRERA for an appropriate order of 'deregistration' by an email dated 31st January 2022. The attachment to that email is in the form of a letter of 29th January 2022 to the Honorary Secretary of MahaRERA.
3. The application does not take the form of a formal adversarial litigation. Perhaps it should, because the fve petitioners before us all most vigorously oppose DB Group's deregistration application. The submission, as we have understood it from Mr Dhond and Mr Seksaria, is that there is no concept of deregistration under the RERA Act at all. This is the matter to be decided.
4. We have heard from Ms Chavan about the various types of processes and procedures that RERA follows. But we believe that allowing DB Group's application to proceed in this fashion will Page 3 of 5 29th March 2022 9-OSWPL-8713-2022+.DOC needlessly create a controversy about the form of the application. That is not a matter that should detain either the authority or us. Everyone needs to get on with the substance of the case.
5. Clearly, the application is being opposed by these fve petitioners. The same application can well be refled with such appropriate amendments as DB group thinks appropriate by 1st April 2022 showing these fve petitioners as opponents or Respondents. The previous application apparently received some sort of registry numbering. The MahaRERA authority and its registry will decide whether to retain that previous numbering or to add a fresh numbering. However we make it clear that it would be most advisable if only the application in the form that we now direct is taken up and disposed of, with the old application sent by email being retained on record.
6. All contentions including as to jurisdiction and availability of remedies under the Statute are expressly kept open.
7. We say nothing further about the application orally made before us that DB Groups deregistration application should be directed to be heard by a particular coram. We have every confdence in every member of MahaRERA and we are sure that the decision will be entirely on merits and on no other basis whatsoever. However high the levels of anxiety, we expect the parties on both sides, and their advocates too, to conduct themselves with the same restraint and courtesy they aford to us in the High Court.
Page 4 of 529th March 2022 9-OSWPL-8713-2022+.DOC
8. We dispose of all these petitions with these observations. It goes without saying that parties will be aforded sufcient time for replies and rejoinders, but equally neither side will seek needless adjournments.
9. If the fnal order is against the present Petitioners (the proposed respondents to DB Group application), it will not be acted on for a period of three weeks so as to enable the Petitioners to take further steps if so advised.
10. Since the petitions are disposed of, previous interim orders will no longer survive.
11. No costs.
(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Page 5 of 5
29th March 2022