In a landmark ruling underscoring the primacy of homebuyer protections under India’s Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rebuffed an aggressive move by lender IIFL Home Finance Ltd. to oust the current developer of the delayed “Woodshire” project near Kalyan. The November 27, 2025, order dismisses IIFL’s plea for revocation and promoter change, labeling it as an overreach beyond RERA’s scope. While focusing on this creditor-developer tussle, the authority also addressed related complaints, imposed safeguards against potential irregularities, and placed the project in limbo pending further scrutiny.
Project Background: A Tale of Delays and Developer Swaps
The “Woodshire” residential project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700012252) in Ambivali has been mired in controversy since its inception. Originally helmed by Kambar Constructions Pvt. Ltd., construction ground to a halt between 2016 and 2019 amid internal disputes and financial woes. This prompted allottee complaints and intervention by secured lender IIFL, who seized assets under the SARFAESI Act in March 2020.
In a 2021 suo motu case, MahaRERA revoked Kambar’s registration and approved IIFL’s nomination of M/s. Shreeji Enterprises as the new promoter, backed by alleged consents from 76 of 115 allottees. The project, now extended to December 31, 2025, for completion, remains incomplete at around 90% structural progress, fueling ongoing litigation.
IIFL’s Bold Claim: Seeking to Revoke and Replace Shreeji
At the heart of the order is IIFL’s complaint (No. CC006000000385436), filed in May 2023, accusing Shreeji of “negligible” progress and breaching a 2020 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). IIFL demanded revocation of Shreeji’s registration under Section 7 of RERA, a transfer of promoter rights under Section 15, or alternatively, permission to sell unsold flats to recover ₹2.65 crore in dues plus penalties.
IIFL positioned itself as the project’s guardian, citing prior MahaRERA recognitions of its secured creditor status and issuing a show-cause notice to Shreeji in March 2023. They argued that Shreeji’s delays violated RERA’s timely delivery mandate, causing hardship to allottees and undermining the Act’s transparency goals.
MahaRERA’s Firm Rejection: No Locus for Lenders in RERA Disputes
Chairperson Manoj Saunik decisively dismissed IIFL’s plea, ruling it non-maintainable. Key reasons include:
- Lack of Standing: IIFL, as a SARFAESI creditor, is not a “promoter” under RERA Section 2(zk) and holds no statutory duties toward allottees.
- No Allottee Consent: Absent fresh written approval from at least two-thirds of allottees (excluding promoter units), no promoter transfer could proceed under Section 15.
- Private Contract Issue: The dispute stems from MoU breaches—a commercial matter for civil courts, not RERA’s allottee-focused jurisdiction.
This rejection highlights RERA’s resistance to lenders “hijacking” projects, prioritizing buyer stability over debt recovery tactics. Shreeji countered by noting project extensions and ongoing work, including occupancy certificate applications.
Other Rulings: Association’s Bid Fails, Partial Win for Homebuyer
The order also disposed of two allied complaints:
- Flat Owners’ Association Plea (No. CC006000000395694): Dismissed for lacking proper authorization and allottee consents to reinstate Kambar as promoter. The association claimed 41 consents (with more pending) but failed to substantiate them adequately.
- Homebuyer Bhanwarlal Mohatta’s Complaint (No. CC12401273): Partly allowed. Mohatta sought Agreements for Sale for four flats (Nos. 104, 605, 809, 1206). Relief was granted only for Nos. 104 and 605, where full payment proofs were provided—Shreeji must execute and register these within 30 days using MahaRERA’s model form. The other two lacked documents, and Mohatta was fined ₹20,000 for negligence plus ₹5,000 in court fees.
These decisions reflect MahaRERA’s emphasis on evidence-based relief while discouraging repetitive or incomplete filings.
Red Flags on Double Sales: Project Frozen Amid Probes
Alarming allegations of dual allotments surfaced, with Kambar providing evidence of 13 flats (e.g., Flat No. 1005) sold twice—once by them to original buyers and again by Shreeji to new purchasers without resolving prior claims. Shreeji offered no rebuttal.
MahaRERA ordered both promoters to submit affidavits within seven days: Shreeji detailing all sales, unsold units, and financials; Kambar listing original allotments with proofs. Until resolved:
- The project is in abeyance, halting all sales, marketing, or bookings.
- Bank accounts are frozen.
- Sub-registrars barred from registering any agreements or deeds.
This interim freeze protects allottees from further irregularities but prolongs delays for the 115 affected families.
Broader Implications for Real Estate Lenders and Developers
The ruling sets a precedent: While lenders like IIFL can facilitate project revivals, they cannot unilaterally dictate outcomes under RERA without allottee backing. It reinforces the Act’s consumer-centric ethos amid India’s booming but volatile real estate sector. As of December 13, 2025, no updates on affidavit compliance or freeze lifting have emerged, leaving Woodshire’s fate hanging.
Experts warn this could deter aggressive lender interventions in stalled projects, pushing for more collaborative resolutions. Homebuyers, meanwhile, remain caught in the crossfire of financial and regulatory battles.
