Disposed

Rahul Wadhwani v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Bombay HC6 Aug 2024WP/3688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order corrects a clerical error in a previous judgment regarding company groupings. The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition filed by a homebuyer, directing the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to expedite the hearing and decide a pending complaint within six months without adjudicating merit.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents (RERA authorities) to hear and decide the regular complaint filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of the order.

Rahul Wadhwani vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9.wp.3688.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3688 OF 2024

¶3

Rahul Wadhwani .. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO

¶6

Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2024.09.05 19:05:27 +0530

¶7

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Ms.Aparajita K. Jha i/b Rahul Karmarkar, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Rohan Savant a/w Yash Momaya, Ishaan Chaudhary Kavish Arora i/b IC Legal, Advocates for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶11

Ms.S.D.Vyas, Addl.G.P. a/w Tanaya Goswami, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶12

CORAM :B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶13

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶14

P. C.

¶15

1. The above matter is moved for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 8^th August 2024.

¶16

2. Mr.Savant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 submitted that in the said order it is recorded

¶17

Page 1 of 6 SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶18

Utkarsh

¶19

9.wp.3688.2024.doc

¶20

that Aap Realtors Pvt Ltd is a group company of Transcon Developers Private Limited. He submitted that this recording is factually incorrect as Aap Realtors Pvt Ltd is neither a group company of Transcon Developers Pvt Ltd or Transcon Builders & Contractors Pvt Ltd. He submitted that Transcon Developers Pvt Ltd and Transcon Builders & Contractors Pvt Ltd are group companies and not Aap Realtors Pvt Ltd. He, therefore, submitted that the words “ though group companies, ” ought to be deleted from paragraph 3 of the order dated 8^th August 2024.

¶21

3. Having heard Mr.Savant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5, as well as the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, it is directed that in paragraph 3 of the order dated 8^th August 2024 the words “ though group companies, ” shall be deleted.

¶22

4. No other correction is sought. The correction shall be carried out in the original order as well as in the copy uploaded on the server.

¶23

Page 2 of 6 SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶24

Utkarsh

¶25

9.wp.3688.2024.doc

¶26

5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/

¶27

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶28

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶29

For the sake of convenience the order dated 8^th August 2024 (as corrected) reproduced below:-

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3688 OF 2024

¶31

Rahul Wadhwani .. Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. .. Respondents

¶34

Ms.Aparajita K. Jha i/b Rahul Kamerkar, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶35

Mr.Rohan Sawant a/w Yash Momaya, Anant Ratnaparkhi i/b IC Legal , Advocates for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶36

Ms.S.D.Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms.Tanaya Goswami, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶37

CORAM :B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 08, 2024

¶38

P. C.

¶39

Page 3 of 6 SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶40

Utkarsh

¶41

9.wp.3688.2024.doc

¶42

1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following

¶43

reliefs:-

¶44

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to refund the amount received by them from the Petitioner with 24% interest till the date of payment, from the date on which the Petitioner paid the Respondent Nos.3 to 5;

¶45

(b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to pay damages of Rs.1 Crore to the Petitioner and others. Since the amount of compensation claimed by the Petitioner is based on today’s market rate of the similar flat in the said project as well as huge mental torture and agony that the Petitioner has undergone due to the fraud played by the Respondent Nos.3 to 5;

¶46

(c) That in the alternative this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to expedite the hearing and adjudication, and decide Complaint Case No.CC006000000197435 within a period of 6 months;”

¶47

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is only pressing for reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) reproduced above. She submitted that the aforesaid complaint has been filed by the Petitioner as far back as on 29^th June

¶48

Page 4 of 6 SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶49

Utkarsh

¶50

9.wp.3688.2024.doc

¶51

2021 and the complaint has not yet been decided. It is for this reason that prayer clause (c) is pressed into service.

¶52

3. Mr.Sawant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 firstly submitted that in the above Petition Respondent No.5 has been wrongly joined. He submitted that Transcon Developers Pvt Ltd are not in any way connected to the present dispute, and it is Aap Realtors Limited who is the concerned party. He submitted that in the cause title it is totally incorrect to state that Aap Realtors Pvt Ltd is now known as Transcon Developers Pvt Ltd. He submitted that these two entities are separate entities, and Aap Realtors Ltd is very much in existence even today. This is apart from the fact that according to Respondent Nos.3 to 5 the present transaction was never for sale and/or purchase of the Flat but was really a monetary transaction. He lastly submitted that in fact there were reconciliation proceedings held before the RERA Authorities and according to Respondent Nos.3 to 5 there is a binding settlement that has been arrived at between Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the allottee/Petitioner. He submitted that if all these contentions are expressly kept open to be agitated before the RERA Authority, Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have no objection if the hearing of the complaint is expedited.

¶53

Page 5 of 6 SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶54

Utkarsh

¶55

9.wp.3688.2024.doc

¶56

4. Having heard both the learned counsel, and considering that only prayer clause (c) is pressed into service before us, we dispose of the above Writ Petition by requesting the RERA Authorities to hear and decide the complaint filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 months from today.

¶57

5. We make it clear that we have not opined on the merits of the matter one way or the other and all issues, including the ones raised and reproduced by us above, shall be decided by the RERA Authorities on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶58

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶60

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶61

Page 6 of 6 SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶62

Utkarsh

Rahul Wadhwani v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Wadhwani v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Global Exim vs the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 1 Mumbai and Ors.

Hayden Trading Private Limited vs the Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

Nirali Parekh and 2 Ors. vs Kishore Vrajlal Soni

Bharat Valia vs State Bank of India

Prashant Shukla vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

Sudhir Amritlal Kotak vs the Sub Registrar, Administrative Officer