A promoter who lost a real estate project years ago tried to take it back. MahaRERA has rejected that bid and held that the allegation of fraudulent double sale of flats does not survive. In an order dated 3 August 2026 in Suo Motu Case No. 209 of 2021, Chairperson Manoj Saunik also lifted the abeyance on the Woodshire project (registration P51700012252) and directed that its designated bank account be unfrozen.
Shreeji Enterprises remains the promoter. Kambar Constructions was the erstwhile promoter. IIFL, the financial institution named in the matter, did not appear.
Chronology of the dispute
On 23 December 2021, MahaRERA permitted Shreeji Enterprises to take over Woodshire as the new promoter under Section 15 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act after 76 out of 115 allottees consented to the change.
On 27 November 2025, Kambar Constructions applied to transfer the same project back into its name. That application was dismissed. The Authority directed Shreeji to file an affidavit explaining alleged double sale of flats and kept the project in abeyance.
On 13 May 2026 the Authority issued interim directions for pleadings. On 8 June 2026, after finding discrepancies between Shreeji’s affidavit and earlier disclosures, it directed a fresh affidavit. The matter was heard on 9 July 2026 and reserved for orders. The final order was pronounced on 3 August 2026.
What the erstwhile promoter alleged
Kambar Constructions told the Authority there had been no progress after the 2021 transfer, that Shreeji’s quarterly performance reviews did not match its 20 January 2026 affidavit, and that the promoter had not produced complete unedited bank statements or compliance submissions as directed.
It further alleged fraudulent double sales, failure to account for allottee funds, and no physical progress for nearly six years even though the project was said to be about 90 per cent structurally complete at the time of takeover. Kambar also objected to an order of 26 May 2026 that permitted development of another tower (P51700005912) and sought recall or stay of that order, arguing Shreeji lacked track record, financial capability and compliance.
What the current promoter told MahaRERA
Advocate Tushar Gujjar, appearing for Shreeji Enterprises, submitted that the January 2026 affidavit had to be read with its annexures on sold and unsold units. He clarified that the statement that only 24 flats were sold should not be treated as the promoter’s stand, because a declaration dated 30 June 2023 already disclosed 124 units sold out of 127 apartments. There was therefore no discrepancy, he said. He also argued that the erstwhile promoter no longer had locus to raise these issues.
Double-sale allegation closed
On the charge of dual sale of flats, the Authority held that the issue does not survive.
“The allegation regarding dual sale of flats does not survive for consideration,” the order records. “As already recorded in the order dated 08.06.2026, the cancellation deeds in respect of the concerned transactions had been executed prior to the order dated 27.11.2025. Further, no fresh instance of alleged dual sale has been placed on record and no allottee, or subsequent purchaser has approached this Authority with any grievance. Accordingly, the issue of alleged dual sale stands concluded and requires no further adjudication.”
On the remaining allegations, the Authority found that no satisfactory evidence had been placed on record. “The submissions of the erstwhile promoter do not warrant any intervention of this Authority in view of the present set of pleadings,” it said.
Wrong figure in one affidavit
A separate inconsistency had earlier drawn scrutiny. Shreeji’s 20 January 2026 affidavit stated that only 24 flats were sold. That sat uneasily with the 2021 order, which recorded consent of 76 out of 115 allottees, and with an exhibit that showed 124 apartments sold out of 127.
After hearing the clarification, the Authority accepted that the “only 24 sold” line was an incorrect statement in that affidavit, and that the June 2023 sold-unsold declaration reflected the true position.
“The present promoter is, therefore, directed to exercise due care while filing affidavits and disclosures before this Authority and to ensure that all future declarations are accurate, complete and consistent with the records maintained on the MahaRERA portal,” Chairperson Saunik recorded.
Project taken out of abeyance
The Authority vacated the operative effect of directions in paragraphs 23F, 23G and 23H of its 27 November 2025 order. It directed the Secretary, MahaRERA, to remove Woodshire from abeyance and to issue consequential instructions to the concerned bank and the Joint Registrar of Assurances so that the designated project account can operate in accordance with the Act and rules.
The bank holding the project account for P51700012252 was directed to unfreeze it. The Joint Registrar of Assurances was directed to take note of the order for registration of Agreements for Sale and sale deeds. Shreeji was directed to file updated quarterly progress reports and other mandated compliances.
The suo motu case and Shreeji’s application dated 8 May 2026 seeking removal from abeyance were disposed of. There was no order as to costs.
The order does not decide possession or construction progress on the ground. It closes the issues that had kept the project frozen and rejects the bid to reclaim a project that had already changed hands under Section 15.
Also Read: Buyer Ghosts Builder After Paying ₹49k: MahaRERA Orders Agreement Cancellation
