The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has partly allowed Complaint No. CC006000000302896 filed by homebuyer Risham Sethi against Sharayu Developers Private Limited and associated entities. The Authority has directed the promoter to refund the entire amount of ₹21,84,318/- paid by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of State Bank of India’s Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum, calculated from 5 June 2009 until actual realisation. The promoter must also pay ₹20,000 as costs of the complaint. The full amount is to be paid within 60 days of the order dated 22 June 2026.
Chronological Facts of the Case
20 July 2005 — An allotment letter was issued in favour of Risham Sethi for Flat No. 901 on the 9th floor in the project “Sun Beam” (MahaRERA Registration No. P51800013366), situated at Lokhandwala Complex, Off Four Bungalows, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053. The total consideration was fixed at ₹54,58,750/-. The complainant paid an earnest money deposit, which was acknowledged by the respondent.
2005–2006 — The complainant made further payments. Receipts on record show:
- ₹1,00,000/- on 16.07.2005 (acknowledged in the allotment letter)
- ₹1,50,000/- and ₹4,35,818/- on 06.03.2006
- ₹7,00,000/- on 29.05.2006
- ₹7,98,500/- on 05.06.2006
These payments, all received and acknowledged by M/s. Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd., totalled exactly ₹21,84,318/-. No registered Agreement for Sale was executed despite the promoter having received more than 10% of the total consideration — a clear violation of Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Subsequent Years — Possession of the flat was never handed over. The complainant remained ready and willing to pay the balance consideration as per the progress of the project. On perusal of the MahaRERA website, the proposed date of completion was shown as 30.09.2024, later revised to 31.12.2029. The project remains incomplete even after more than two decades.
The complainant approached MahaRERA seeking withdrawal from the project and refund of the amount paid along with interest at 18% per annum.
26 June 2024 — The respondent uploaded its reply and contested the complaint on multiple grounds:
- Limitation (claim time-barred after nearly 20 years)
- Lack of jurisdiction and maintainability under Section 31 of the RERA Act
- Non-joinder of necessary parties (project registered in the name of Sharayu Developers AOP, not Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd.)
- No specific possession date mentioned in the 2005 allotment letter
- Delay caused by internal disputes and litigation with Mr. Zahur Mohid concerning FSI and development rights; reliance placed on Bombay High Court order dated 28.04.2023 and Arbitral Tribunal interim order dated 22.03.2024
- No documentary evidence of any assurance regarding completion by 2010
Conciliation proceedings were attempted but failed.
16 September 2025 — Final hearing before Member II Ravindra Deshpande. The complainant was absent and had not uploaded any rejoinder. Time was granted for written arguments; the matter was reserved for orders.
22 June 2026 — MahaRERA passed the final order.
Authority’s Key Findings
- The cause of action is continuous because possession has not been delivered and the project remains incomplete. The complaint cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation.
- Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. v. Trevor D’Lima & Ors., when no possession date is mentioned, a reasonable period of three years is to be considered. The last payment was received on 05.06.2006; therefore, possession ought to have been offered by 04.06.2009. Interest is accordingly computed from 05.06.2009.
- Internal disputes among developers (including arbitration and High Court proceedings) cannot be used as a defence against the statutory rights of an allottee. Such disputes are between the promoter entities and stakeholders; the homebuyer is not a party to them.
- Project records (Declaration Form-B dated 01.09.2017 and Form-1) show involvement of M/s. Mohid Construction Co., M/s. Sharayu Developers AOP and M/s. Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd. All these entities are jointly and severally liable towards allottees. The allotment letter and payment receipts were issued in the name of Sharayu Developers Pvt. Ltd., which received the money.
- Reliance placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. — the right to refund under Section 18(1)(a) is a substantive and indefeasible statutory right when the promoter fails to hand over possession.
- No separate compensation for mental agony was awarded as the interest itself is compensatory in nature. However, costs of ₹20,000 were granted because the complainant was forced to approach the Authority due to non-delivery of possession and failure to refund.
The Order
- Complaint partly allowed.
- Respondent/promoter directed to refund ₹21,84,318/- along with interest at SBI Highest MCLR + 2% p.a. from 05.06.2009 till actual realisation.
- Amount to be paid within 60 days from the date of the order.
- Respondent to pay ₹20,000/- as costs of the complaint.
- Complaint disposed of accordingly.
Member: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA Date of Order: 22.06.2026
