Paid ₹32 lakh in 2012 for an Andheri East flat. No registered agreement. No possession. Their lawyer told MahaRERA the same flat was later handed to someone else. On 8 September 2026, the regulator still said it cannot help — not because it rejected the buyers’ story, but because insolvency law has frozen the case.
That is the outcome in Complaint No. CC006000000198679, decided by MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande. The complaint of Mr Sudhir Hegde and Mrs Lalita Carolena Misquitta against KSL & Industries Ltd, Dhruvi Properties Pvt Ltd and Mr Kiran Shah has been disposed of as not maintainable at this stage. There is no order for possession, no Occupation Certificate, no registered Agreement for Sale, and no delay interest under Section 18 of RERA.
The authority did not decide who is right. It said the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and the Section 14 IBC moratorium, flowing from an NCLT order dated 15 December 2023, stop it from passing directions against the promoter for now.
The booking that never became a home
The flat in dispute is Flat No. 810, B Wing, 8th floor, carpet area 625 sq ft, with utility/service areas and car parking, in the project first marketed as Empress Height and later called The Height. It stands on Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East), on land bearing CTS Nos. 176(pt), 177(pt), 178(pt), 179(pt), 180, 181(pt), 204(pt), 205(pt) and 206(pt) of Village Marol. The MahaRERA registration number is P51800007232.
On 8 May 2012, KSL & Industries Ltd issued an allotment letter. The total consideration recorded in the complaint is ₹70,00,800. The couple say they paid ₹32,00,000 — about 45 per cent — in February and April 2012, after advertisements promised possession by June 2013 and high-end amenities.
Despite taking that money, KSL did not execute or register an Agreement for Sale. Only the allotment letter was issued. The balance was to be paid as construction progressed.
That is the starting point of a 14-year wait.
Chronology of a stalled allotment
February–April 2012: Buyers pay ₹32 lakh towards Flat 810.
8 May 2012: KSL issues the allotment letter for ₹70,00,800.
June 2013: Promised possession date, as per the buyers. Possession does not take place.
10 September 2012: KSL writes a letter apologising for delay in establishing the project — an early admission that the timeline had already slipped.
15 July 2016: The buyers write to KSL seeking alternative accommodation or rent because possession has not been given.
23 June 2016: KSL enters into an agreement transferring development rights of the project to Dhruvi Properties Pvt Ltd. The buyers say Dhruvi stepped into KSL’s shoes — to complete already allotted flats, collect the balance, and obtain the Occupation Certificate.
June 2017: Dhruvi registers the project with MahaRERA as P51800007232.
18 July 2017: In Form B, Dhruvi files an affidavit-cum-declaration stating it had legal title to the land.
28 February 2017: An addendum modifies the 2016 development agreement. It clarifies Dhruvi’s rights to sell, allot, re-allot or cancel units, receive consideration, and acquire additional FSI and TDR.
6 September 2019: NCLT Ahmedabad, in C.P. No. (IB)397/7/NCLT/AHM/2018 (Abhinandam Multitrade Private Limited & Anr. v. KSL & Industries Ltd.), appoints an Interim Resolution Professional for KSL. The buyers argue this does not wipe out their claim because development rights had already moved to Dhruvi in 2016, and the project was registered before the NCLT order.
13 March 2019: An unsigned letter attributed to Dhruvi demands ₹16,95,141 towards the 1st to 5th slabs.
31 October 2019: A later Form B affidavit says KSL had legal title and that Dhruvi was developing the project under the June 2016 joint development agreement. An undated certificate on the MahaRERA portal also states Dhruvi acquired rights from KSL under that agreement.
26 April 2019 / 30 November 2019: Emails fly between the parties over outstanding dues and who should answer.
4 January 2020: Dhruvi advertises sale of flats in the Times of India, Mumbai edition. A proforma Agreement for Sale is uploaded on the MahaRERA portal. The buyers say it records the transfer from KSL to Dhruvi but does not mention the February 2017 addendum. The portal describes the arrangement as “Revenue share”.
14 September 2021: In another complaint from the same project (CC0060000000195685), MahaRERA had earlier dealt with similar facts. The developer later relied on that order. In 2026, the authority said that 2021 order cannot override a moratorium imposed later.
15 December 2023: NCLT Mumbai appoints IRP Modilal Dhanraj Panecha and records the Section 14 IBC moratorium.
24 June 2025: Final hearing. The buyers’ advocate, Godfrey Pimenta, is present. None appears for the respondents, though notice and the video-conference link were served.
8 September 2026: Final order. Complaint disposed of as not maintainable at this stage.
What the buyers told MahaRERA
The couple’s case was not only delay. They invoked Section 15 of RERA, arguing that transfer of the project cannot destroy an existing allotment. They called Dhruvi a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) because it registered the project. They relied on the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ruling in Mangal Murti Foundation v. Mahavir Patwa Developers to say that once a project is registered, promoter and allottees are bound by RERA duties.
They also pointed to Dhruvi’s own MahaRERA filings: title affidavits, the uploaded certificate of rights acquired from KSL, public advertisements, and the proforma sale agreement.
The sharpest allegation came at the June 2025 hearing. Their advocate submitted that:
- the land belongs to BEST
- rights were transferred without BEST’s permission
- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently transferred the flat to a third party and handed over possession to that third party
MahaRERA recorded that submission in the roznama. It did not inquire into it and did not record any finding that the flat was in fact sold or given to another person. That allegation remains the buyers’ case, not a concluded fact.
The reliefs sought were possession with OC, execution and registration of the Agreement for Sale, Section 18 interest from 1 July 2013 till actual handover, compensation for mental agony, and costs.
What the developer side said
Dhruvi had filed a reply on the MahaRERA website and later an additional reply after the 2023 NCLT order.
Its main defences:
- The allotment was only with KSL. Privity of contract, it said, stops the buyers from fastening KSL’s promises on Dhruvi.
- KSL was already in insolvency. Claims should go to the IRP, not MahaRERA.
- The complaint was barred by limitation — booking in 2012, complaint about a decade later, with unexplained delay.
- The buyers suppressed that large amounts remained unpaid. An account statement was annexed showing ₹73,07,416 allegedly outstanding.
- Slab-wise payments were not made on time. That, Dhruvi said, starved the project of funds and forced borrowing. Photographs were produced to show the project at an advanced stage, with delay blamed on the buyers.
- Under the development and supplementary agreements, Dhruvi claimed it was only a contractor working under KSL’s instructions, not personally liable to execute an Agreement for Sale or pay interest.
- If anyone owed interest, it was the buyers, for delayed instalments.
- The 14 September 2021 order in the sister complaint, it said, had already accepted Dhruvi’s stand.
After 15 December 2023, Dhruvi added that Section 14 IBC bars continuation of suits and proceedings against the company, and asked that IRP Modilal Panecha be impleaded.
The respondents did not appear at the hearing where the matter was reserved.
Why MahaRERA refused to decide the case
Member Deshpande noted it was admitted that IBC proceedings are pending and that the 15 December 2023 NCLT order appointed an IRP and applied the moratorium.
Section 14 of the IBC stops institution or continuation of suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor during CIRP. The object, the order says, is to keep the company’s assets and affairs intact so insolvency can proceed without a scatter of competing orders.
The authority held that the reliefs sought — possession of the flat, a registered sale agreement, and Section 18 interest — would “have a direct bearing upon the rights, obligations and liabilities” of the company under insolvency. Passing those directions during the moratorium could cut across the statutory shield of Section 14.
The 2021 order in the other complaint was distinguished in one line: it was passed before the later NCLT order. It cannot be read as permission to ignore a moratorium imposed afterwards.
Then came the operative finding:
“Without going into the merits of the complaints, considering the existence of the initiation of CIRP process against the Respondent Promoter vide the NCLT Order dated 15.12.2023, this Authority is prohibited from passing any order against the Respondents Promoter in the present complaint… the complaint at this juncture is not adjudicable… hence, the complaint is disposed as not maintainable at this stage…”
Liberty was given to file a fresh complaint. If filed, MahaRERA said it will be taken up with original seniority.
What this order does — and does not — decide
It does not say the buyers are not allottees.
It does not say Dhruvi is not a promoter.
It does not decide whether ₹32 lakh was enough, whether ₹73 lakh is still due, or whether the buyers delayed slab payments.
It does not examine the BEST-land allegation.
It does not confirm or reject the charge that Flat 810 was given to a third party.
It only says: not now, not while the moratorium lasts.
For homebuyers, that distinction is the whole story. A family that paid nearly half the price in 2012, never got a registered agreement, and told the regulator their flat was handed to someone else, still walks out of MahaRERA without a single enforceable direction. The regulator’s door is not permanently shut — original seniority is preserved — but the wait that began with a June 2013 possession promise now depends on how the insolvency process ends.
That is the news in this order: RERA rights can exist on paper and still be unenforceable when IBC intervenes. For Hegde and Misquitta, fourteen years after they paid ₹32 lakh, MahaRERA’s answer on 8 September 2026 was that it cannot help them at this stage.
Also Read: MahaRERA Allows Parking in Adjacent Building of Same Layout
