BEFORE THE HON’BLE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

COMPLAINT NO. CC005000000461143/2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

PRIYANKA RAJENDRA SHINDE & ANR. …

COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/S AVIOR MERLIN VENTURES LLP …

RESPONDENT

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE

COMPLAINANT.
2. AFFIDAVIT

MUMBAI
DATED:
Through

Props Legal
Advocates for the complainant
Office No. 3B, 4th Floor,
Rajendra Place, Pusa Road
New Delhi-110060
Email: - [email protected]
 REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

Most respectfully Showeth :-

1. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not duly

authorized to file the present reply, as no document or evidence has

been annexed to substantiate such authorization. There is no

authority letter, no proof of consent from the partners, and no

documentary evidence establishing that the person filing the reply

is a legally recognized partner of the Respondent firm. In the

absence of such crucial authorizations, the reply has been filed

without any legal standing and is, therefore, non-est in the eyes of

the law.

Further, the said reply has been filed without a proper affidavit,

which is a mandatory requirement for the verification of pleadings.

The absence of a duly sworn affidavit renders the reply procedurally

defective and legally untenable. Moreover, the reply has not been

notarized by a Notary Public or attested by an Oath Commissioner,

which is an essential requirement to establish its authenticity and

legal admissibility. In view of the foregoing defects, the said reply is

liable to be disregarded and cannot be considered as a valid

pleading before this Hon’ble Authority. In support of the above

contentions, complainant relying on below judgments of Hon’ble

courts: -
 A. United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (1996) 6

SCC 660 – The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the case of a

partnership firm or corporate entity, a person filing pleadings on

its behalf must demonstrate proper authorization. In the absence

of such authorization, the pleadings are not maintainable.

B. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors.,

(2009) 9 SCC 709 – The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized

that affidavits are essential for verification and authentication of

pleadings, and any defect in verification renders the pleading

defective.

C. Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable

Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC

706 – The Hon’ble Court held that if a pleading is not properly

supported by an affidavit, it lacks evidentiary value and cannot

be relied upon.

D. Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan v. State of Maharashtra,

(2002) 2 Mh.L.J. 487 – The Bombay High Court held that

documents requiring attestation must be properly notarized or

sworn before an Oath Commissioner; otherwise, they are not

legally tenable.

In view of the above, the present reply, having been filed without

proper authorization, consent, affidavit, and notarization, is legally

unsustainable and ought to be rejected outright.

2. Without prejudice to all the rights and contentions, the complainant

wishes to maintain and reaffirm each and all averments made in the
 complaint. At the very outset, it is submitted that all statements and

contentions made by the respondent in its reply/ written statement

are false, wrong and frivolous and are denied except those, which

have specifically been admitted herein below or traversed

therefrom. Each and every averment contained in the Respondent's

Reply is false, incorrect, and vehemently denied.

3. That the contents of reply/ written statement are wrong and denied

except those, which have specifically been admitted herein below or

traversed therefrom. It is submitted that the contents of the Claim

petition and Preliminary objection shall be read along with the reply

of this para as the same shall not be reiterated here to avoid

repetition. The Complainant reiterates that the Respondent has

failed to provide any updates, information, or intimations regarding

the progress of construction and the status of the project. This

failure is evident from the Respondent’s own Reply/Written

Statement, which is devoid of any documentary evidence, such as

emails, letters, messages, or any other form of communication

establishing that such updates were ever provided to the

Complainant.

4. The complete absence of any supporting documents on record

demonstrates that the Respondent has failed to discharge its

obligation to keep the Complainant informed about the development

of the project, thereby breaching the principles of transparency and

good faith, as mandated under the agreement and applicable laws.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have

 consistently held that a developer is duty-bound to provide

regular updates to homebuyers and failure to do so amounts

to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. That in

the matter of Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr.

v. Govindan Raghavan (2019) 5 SCC 725 Held that a builder

cannot take advantage of one-sided contractual terms and is liable

for failing to keep the buyer informed about construction progress.

Furthermore, in the case of Bangalore Development Authority

v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 Hon’ble Court Emphasized

that non-disclosure of material information and lack of transparency

amounts to unfair trade practice. Furthermore, in the case of

Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC

243 Hon’ble Court Recognized that failure to provide promised

services or updates to the buyer constitutes deficiency in service

under consumer protection laws. Furthermore, in the case of Wing

Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. v. DLF Southern

Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512 Hon’ble Court

Reinforced that delay and non-communication of project status are

valid grounds for consumer claims against developers.

5. It is abundantly clear from the contents of the Reply filed by the

Respondent that they have blatantly failed to adhere to the terms

and conditions of the Agreement and have wilfully violated the

provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,

2016 ("RERA"). The Respondent’s failure to upload the stage-wise

progress and status of the construction on the RERA portal, as

 mandated under the Act, constitutes a clear violation of statutory

obligations. Furthermore, the Respondent’s failure to provide such

crucial information directly to the Complainant amounts to a

deficiency in service, a breach of contractual obligations, and an

unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have categorically

held that developers are under a legal obligation to maintain

transparency and disclose all material information to homebuyers.

The deliberate omission of such disclosures not only prejudices the

rights of the Complainant but also constitutes a violation of the

fundamental objectives of RERA, which is to ensure accountability

and protect the interests of homebuyers. That in the matter of M/s

Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Ors., (2020) 10 SCC

783 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that RERA mandates

developers to provide regular construction updates and any failure

to do so constitutes a breach of statutory duty. Further, The Court

emphasized that builders must act in good faith and cannot escape

liability for non-disclosure of vital information related to project

progress. That in the matter of Kolkata West International City

Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, (2019) 18 SCC 692 Held that non-

compliance with contractual and statutory obligations, including

failure to provide construction updates, is a deficiency in service.

6. The claims and contentions of the Respondent regarding alleged

unforeseen challenges and external circumstances beyond their

control are baseless, misconceived, and vehemently denied. It is a

well-established principle that before launching any real estate

project, it is the fundamental duty of the developer to conduct a

proper title search and due diligence concerning the subject

property. However, in the present case, the Respondent has

blatantly failed in its obligation to undertake the requisite due

diligence, thereby demonstrating gross negligence and a clear

disregard for legal compliance. It is pertinent to note that the

Complainant executed the Agreement on 17.09.2020, whereas the

State of Maharashtra had already issued a Gazette

Notification on 21.09.2019, much prior to the execution of the

Agreement. This incontrovertible fact establishes that the

Respondent wilfully ignored the said Gazette Notification dated

21.09.2019 and is now attempting to unjustly shift the

consequences of its own negligence onto the Complainant. The

deliberate omission of such a critical regulatory development from

the Agreement further demonstrates the Respondent’s malafide

intent to misrepresent material facts and extort money from the

Complainant despite having full knowledge of the said Gazette

Notification dated 21.09.2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and

various High Courts have consistently held that developers are

duty-bound to conduct comprehensive due diligence before offering

a project for sale and that any failure to disclose material facts

constitutes deficiency in service, misrepresentation, and unfair

trade practice. The Respondent's failure to act in a diligent and

transparent manner renders them liable for serious legal

 consequences. The Respondent’s conduct is in clear violation of the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)

and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and appropriate legal

consequences must follow.

7. In Paragraph No. 04 of the Reply, the Respondent has sought to

invoke the doctrine of force majeure under Clause 3.3 of the

Agreement. In response to the same, the Complainant categorically

states that the said benefits are not applicable in the present case

due to the following reasons:

A. Prior Knowledge of Regulatory Restrictions: The Respondent

was fully aware of the State of Maharashtra Gazette

Notification dated 21.09.2019 before launching the project.

Despite having explicit knowledge of the said notification, the

Respondent proceeded with the project, sold the unit to the

Complainant, and deliberately failed to disclose this material fact,

thereby acting in bad faith.

B. Intentional Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation: The

Respondent intentionally and deliberately omitted any reference to

the Gazette Notification dated 21.09.2019 in the Agreement, with

the clear intent to mislead and misrepresent facts to the

Complainant, demonstrating malafide intent and an attempt to

fraudulently induce the Complainant into the transaction.

C. Non-Compliance with RERA Obligations: The Respondent failed

to fulfil its statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) by:

 o Failing to upload construction progress updates on the

RERA portal, thereby violating the duty of transparency.

o Failing to disclose ongoing litigation reports on the

RERA portal, depriving homebuyers of crucial information

regarding legal disputes affecting the project.

o Failing to provide any information to the Complainant

regarding these material facts, thereby engaging in an unfair

trade practice.

D. Unjustified Delay in Possession: The Respondent failed to hand

over physical possession of the unit to the Complainant within the

stipulated/agreed timeline mentioned in the Agreement, without any

valid justification. The invocation of force majeure cannot be used

as an afterthought to escape liability for deliberate lapses and

negligent actions on the part of the Respondent.

8. Failure to Exercise Due Diligence: The Stop Work Notice dated

31.12.2020 was issued 15 months after the Gazette Notification

dated 21.09.2019, raising serious doubts about the Respondent’s

due diligence and its reckless approach in dealing with regulatory

issues. The Respondent was grossly negligent in addressing critical

compliance matters and is now seeking to take advantage of its own

wrongful conduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High

Courts have consistently held that a developer cannot claim force

majeure when delays arise due to their own negligence, lack of

due diligence, and failure to disclose material facts. The

 Respondent’s attempt to invoke force majeure is therefore legally

untenable and unsustainable. That it is clearly stated in the

judgment of Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v.

Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 that a developer cannot

rely on external circumstances to evade liability when it has acted

negligently and failed to disclose material facts. Furthermore,

Hon’ble Court Held that force majeure cannot be claimed if the

developer was aware of regulatory issues before execution of the

agreement and failed to take corrective measures in the case of

Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. v. DLF

Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 16 SCC 512. Given

the above, it is evident that the Respondent is wrongfully seeking to

take advantage of its own negligence to evade liability. The

invocation of force majeure in the present case is legally

unsustainable and must be outrightly rejected.

9. Complainant states that the principle of force majeure is often

invoked by developers as a defense to justify project delays and

escape liability for failing to hand over possession within the

stipulated timelines. While force majeure refers to unforeseeable

events beyond the control of parties, courts have consistently

held that it cannot be misused to shield a developer’s

negligence, lack of due diligence, and failure to disclose

material facts. The doctrine of force majeure finds its roots in

contract law, specifically under Section 56 of the Indian

Contract Act, 1872, which deals with the impossibility of

performance. It is also recognized under Section 6 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA),

which allows developers to seek an extension of registration if the

project is delayed due to force majeure events. However, courts

have made it clear that developers cannot take refuge

under force majeure when delays result from their own

wrongful conduct. In support of the contentions,

Complainant relying on the Judgment of M/s Imperia

Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Ors., (2020) 10 SCC 783 where

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with statutory

obligations under RERA, including updating construction

progress and disclosing litigation issues, amounts to

deficiency in service. The developer in this case failed to exercise

due diligence, and its invocation of force majeure was rejected. It is

also reaffirmed that developers cannot claim force majeure when

delays are attributable to their negligence, non-disclosure of

material facts, or lack of due diligence. Hon’ble Court also held that

a developer cannot rely on force majeure when delays arise

due to its own failure to secure necessary approvals,

conduct proper title searches, or disclose regulatory

restrictions. The Court observed that such acts amount to

misrepresentation and unfair trade practice. Further, court also

observed that developers cannot cite force majeure as a

defense when they were aware of regulatory issues before

launching the project and failed to act prudently. That in the

 case of Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis

Rudra, (2019) 18 SCC 692 Court ruled that misrepresentation

and non-disclosure of crucial legal restrictions on land

development render an agreement voidable. In this case, the

developer failed to inform homebuyers of legal disputes affecting

the land, and its claim of force majeure was dismissed.

That in reference to the above judgments, it is clear that

1. Force majeure cannot be invoked for foreseeable regulatory

hurdles: Developers are expected to conduct proper title searches

and due diligence before launching a project.

2. Failure to secure approvals does not constitute force

majeure: If a developer proceeds without obtaining necessary

clearances, delays arising from subsequent legal restrictions cannot

be justified under force majeure.

3. Non-disclosure of material facts invalidates force majeure

claims: Suppression of government notifications, pending litigation,

or other crucial information amounts to misrepresentation.

4. Delays caused by a developer’s negligence do not qualify for

force majeure protection: If delays arise due to lack of planning,

inefficiency, or statutory non-compliance, the developer remains

liable for the consequences.

Complainant also relying on the Recent RERA and Consumer Court

Rulings
Consumer courts and RERA authorities have consistently ruled in favor of

homebuyers where developers attempted to misuse force majeure.

a. The Haryana RERA Authority in 2022 penalized a

builder for citing force majeure despite failing to

secure requisite environmental clearances before

construction.

b. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission (NCDRC) in 2023 ruled that delays

caused by pending land acquisition disputes are

not force majeure but reflect the developer’s lack

of due diligence.

10. The invocation of force majeure is a legal shield meant for

genuine unforeseen events like natural calamities, war, or

government-imposed restrictions due to pandemics but in the

present case, respondent is trying to take an advantage of these

own wrong doings and negligence. That the Respondent cannot

exploit this doctrine to cover up their own negligence, non-

compliance with legal requirements, or suppression of material

facts. Courts have repeatedly emphasized the duty of transparency,

due diligence, and adherence to contractual obligations. Any failure

on these fronts not only invalidates force majeure claims but also

exposes developers to penalties, compensation claims, and

cancellation of agreements.

11. In Paragraph No. 8 of the reply, the Respondent has

asserted that it has carried out the development and construction of

 the project, including the sale of units, with substantial progress and

has obtained the necessary plinth checking certificates from the

Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. In response to

this contention, the Claimant submits that if the Respondent had

indeed made remarkable progress in development and

construction, as claimed, then the invocation of force majeure is

wholly untenable, contradictory, and an attempt to mislead

the Hon’ble Authority. The fact that the Respondent continued to

develop and sell units without disruption clearly establishes that the

alleged impact of COVID-19 was neither unforeseen nor

insurmountable. Hence, the Respondent cannot selectively

invoke force majeure to evade its contractual obligations

under the Agreement.

12. Moreover, the Respondent’s failure to fulfil its obligations

within the stipulated timeframe constitutes a direct

violation of Section 11 and Section 18 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), which

mandate developers to ensure timely possession and accurate

disclosures to homebuyers. The contradictory stance taken by the

Respondent is nothing but an attempt to circumvent liability

and misrepresent material facts before the Hon’ble

Authority.

Negligence, in legal parlance, refers to the failure to exercise the

standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have

exercised in a similar situation. The law does not excuse negligence,

whether in contractual obligations, statutory compliance, or

professional duties. Courts across jurisdictions have consistently

ruled that negligence, whether wilful or arising out of ignorance,

cannot serve as a defence to evade liability.

Complainant states that it is the duty and responsibility of the

respondent to conduct the proper title search and due diligence.

Complainant herein refere the legal maxim "ignorantia juris non

excusat" (ignorance of the law is no excuse) applies broadly to all

legal and contractual obligations. In commercial transactions, real

estate dealings, professional conduct, and administrative duties,

Respondent are expected to act with due diligence. Any failure to

adhere to these responsibilities, resulting in harm or contractual

breach, constitutes negligence, for which the law provides strict

liability. In support of the contentions, complainant relying on the

Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern

Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 512 where The Supreme Court

held that developers who fail to conduct due diligence before

launching projects cannot later claim ignorance of legal hurdles. The

Court directed compensation for homebuyers, ruling that negligence

in verifying land titles and obtaining approvals cannot be excused.

The principle that negligence has no excuse under the law is a

cornerstone of legal jurisprudence. Whether in contractual

obligations, statutory compliance, or professional responsibilities,

courts have consistently rejected negligence as a defense. Judicial

precedents reinforce that every individual and entity must act with
 due diligence, failing which they face legal consequences.

Therefore, diligence, awareness, and adherence to legal

duties remain the only safeguard against liability.

13. In Paragraph No. 14 of the reply, the Respondent has

contended that the first and second notifications were published

without its knowledge or consultation and that no intimation

was provided to the Respondent, including the Pune Metropolitan

Region Development Authority (PMRDA). The Complainant

categorically denies these contentions as being false,

misleading, and legally untenable. The Respondent was fully

aware of the notifications prior to launching the project and

commencing sales. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent

proceeded with the project in blatant disregard of

regulatory requirements, thereby attempting to unjustly benefit

from its own negligence and wrongful actions. It is a settled

principle of law that a party cannot take advantage of its

own wrongs (ex turpi causa non oritur actio).

Furthermore, if the Respondent now claims to have been unaware of

such notifications, it raises serious concerns regarding the due

diligence, statutory compliance, and regulatory approvals

obtained prior to the launch of the project. The failure to

conduct proper due diligence or obtain necessary regulatory

clearances before initiating the project amounts to gross

negligence and wilful omission, which cannot be excused under

the law.
 The Respondent has further failed to discharge its burden of

proof by not producing any documentary evidence before the

Hon’ble Authority to substantiate its claim that the notifications

were unknown to it. This omission not only discredits the

Respondent’s claim but also demonstrates its attempt to evade

legal responsibility by misleading the Hon’ble Authority.

The Respondent’s claim of ignorance regarding the notifications is

nothing but an afterthought and a deliberate attempt to

evade accountability. The failure to conduct proper due

diligence before launching the project constitutes gross

negligence, which is not excusable under the law. The

Respondent’s omission of material facts amounts to

misrepresentation, violation of statutory obligations, and an

attempt to mislead both the Complainant and the Hon’ble

Authority.

14. In Paragraph No. 16 of the reply, the Respondent has falsely

contended that it had addressed a letter to the PMRDA objecting to

the stop-work notice on numerous grounds. This assertion is entirely

baseless and misleading, as the Complainant was never informed or

updated regarding any such communication. The Respondent has

failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to

substantiate this claim, thereby establishing that no such update

was ever shared with the Complainant. This deliberate omission was
clearly intended to mislead and deceive the Complainant with a

fraudulent ulterior motive.

Furthermore, regarding the Respondent's reference to Writ Petition

No. 2404/2021, the Complainant categorically relies on the contents

of the Hon’ble High Court's order dated 03.07.2021. The order

explicitly states that the Municipal Commissioner had directed the

petitioners to send their representative with documentary evidence

for a hearing scheduled at 1:00 PM on 07.01.2021. However, no

such hearing took place as the petitioners belatedly responded to

the show cause notice only on 04.02.2021—nearly four weeks after

the scheduled hearing date.

This unequivocally establishes that the Respondent is solely

responsible for its own default by failing to appear before the

Municipal Commissioner on the stipulated date and subsequently

filing a delayed reply. The resultant delay is entirely attributable to

the Respondent’s inaction. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court did

not grant any substantive relief to the Respondent but merely

provided an opportunity for a hearing.

Pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court's order, the hearing was

conducted, and the developer was expressly directed to halt

construction until the finalization of the alignment of the ring road

as proposed by MSRDC. It is imperative to highlight that the

Respondent, in blatant disregard of its obligations, failed to

communicate, intimate, or disclose this crucial development on the

RERA Portal. Additionally, the Respondent deliberately withheld this

 material information from the Complainant, thereby breaching its

fiduciary duty and acting in bad faith.

15. That Writ Petition No. 8218/2021 has remained at the pre-

admission stage since 2021, and the Respondent has willfully failed

to pursue the matter, demonstrating a clear lack of diligence. The

Complainant further reiterates that the Respondent has deliberately

withheld these crucial details from the RERA portal, which

constitutes a blatant and gross violation of the RERA Rules and

Regulations. Additionally, the Respondent has failed to apprise the

Complainant of these developments in any manner, thereby

intentionally keeping the Complainant in the dark with a fraudulent

ulterior motive to mislead and deceive.

16. That Writ Petition No. 29853 of 2024 has not filed properly

and the same is under objection as per the order dated 22.11.2024

which states that “The aforesaid writ petition was notified on 23 and

24th October 2024 for removal of office objections as provided under

Rule 3 sub rule (ii) of the chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court

Appellate Side rules, 1960. The Ld. Advocate and the Petitioner have

failed to remove office objections – finally 2 weeks’ time granted to

the Petitioner to remove the objections and otherwise appropriate

order will passed”. It is noteworthy to mention herein that the said

writ petition is still under the objections and the Respondent has

wilfully failed to pursue the matter, demonstrating a clear lack of

diligence. The Complainant further reiterates that the Respondent

has deliberately withheld these crucial details from the RERA portal,
 which constitutes a blatant and gross violation of the RERA Rules

and Regulations. Additionally, the Respondent has failed to apprise

the Complainant of these developments in any manner, thereby

intentionally keeping the Complainant in the dark with a fraudulent

ulterior motive to mislead and deceive.

17. That in response to Para no 17 to 20, complainant states that the

Respondent’s blatant failure to adhere to statutory obligations under the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”), along with

gross negligence, misrepresentation, and willful suppression of material

facts, thereby causing grave prejudice to the Complainant. The

Respondent has not only defaulted on its contractual obligations but has

also attempted to mislead the Hon’ble Authority by raising frivolous

contentions, which are legally untenable.

At the very outset, the Complainant categorically denies all

allegations and contentions made by the Respondent in its

Reply/Written Statement, except those expressly admitted herein.

The Respondent’s claims are not only devoid of merit but are also

unsubstantiated, as they fail to provide any documentary evidence

supporting their assertions. The Respondent has deliberately

withheld critical information from the Complainant and has failed to

provide regular updates on the progress of the project, thereby

violating the fundamental principles of transparency and good faith.

It is pertinent to note that Writ Petition No. 8218/2021 has remained

at the pre-admission stage since 2021, with the Respondent failing

to pursue the matter, reflecting a lack of due diligence.

Furthermore, Writ Petition No. 29853/2024 has not been properly

filed and remains under objection as per the Hon’ble Court’s order

dated 22.11.2024. This demonstrates the Respondent’s deliberate

inaction and failure to act in a responsible and legally compliant

manner.

The Respondent’s reliance on the doctrine of force majeure is

completely misconceived, as it had prior knowledge of regulatory

restrictions, including the Gazette Notification dated 21.09.2019,

which was issued well before the execution of the Agreement with

the Complainant. Despite such prior knowledge, the Respondent

failed to disclose this material fact, thereby engaging in an unfair

trade practice. Established judicial precedents, including Pioneer

Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan (2019) 5

SCC 725, have categorically held that a developer cannot escape

liability by invoking one-sided contractual terms or by suppressing

material information from homebuyers.

Further, the Respondent has violated its statutory obligations under

RERA by failing to upload construction progress updates on the

RERA portal and withholding critical litigation details from

homebuyers. Such omissions constitute a direct breach of Sections

11 and 18 of RERA and have been recognized as deficiency in

service by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd.

v. Anil Patni & Ors. (2020) 10 SCC 783. Additionally, the Hon’ble

Courts have consistently held that non-disclosure of material facts

and lack of transparency amount to unfair trade practices under

consumer protection laws, as reaffirmed in Lucknow Development

Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has

attempted to mislead the Hon’ble Authority by falsely claiming that

it had objected to the stop-work notice issued by PMRDA. However,

no documentary evidence, such as letters, emails, or any official

communication, has been placed on record to substantiate this

claim. Moreover, the Respondent’s delay in responding to the show

cause notice in Writ Petition No. 2404/2021—by filing a reply four

weeks after the scheduled hearing—demonstrates a clear lack of

diligence on their part. Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court did not

grant any relief to the Respondent except an opportunity to be

heard. The subsequent hearing resulted in a direction to halt

construction until the finalization of the alignment of the ring road

as proposed by MSRDC, a crucial development that the Respondent

failed to disclose to the Complainant.

The Respondent’s conduct, including suppression of material

information, failure to upload crucial updates on the RERA portal,

and non-disclosure of pending litigation, clearly violates statutory

provisions and established legal principles. The invocation of force

majeure is legally untenable as it is being used as a shield to cover

up the Respondent’s own wrongful actions and regulatory non-

compliance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur

Rahman Khan & Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020)

16 SCC 512 has categorically held that delays and non-

 communication of project status are valid grounds for consumer

claims against developers.

That the Respondent’s malafide conduct, lack of due diligence, and

failure to comply with legal obligations render it liable for

appropriate legal consequences under RERA, the Consumer

Protection Act, 2019, and relevant contractual provisions. The

Complainant, therefore, seeks strict action against the Respondent

for its failure to act in good faith and discharge its obligations in

accordance with law.

PRAYER: -

In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Complainant

most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased

to:

a. Admit the present complaint and take cognizance of the

Respondent’s acts of misrepresentation, breach of contractual and

statutory obligations, and deficiency in service.

b. Direct the Respondent to refund the entire amount paid by the

Complainant towards the said unit, along with interest at an

appropriate rate, from the date of payment till the date of actual

realization, in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Consumer

Protection Act, 2019.

 c. Award compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony,

financial hardship, and harassment caused due to the wrongful

conduct of the Respondent.

d. Impose appropriate penalty on the Respondent for its deliberate

non-compliance with statutory obligations under RERA and its failure

to uphold transparency and good faith in its dealings with the

Complainant.

e. Pass any other relief(s) and orders as this Hon’ble Authority

may deem just, fit, and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and

good conscience.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
COMPLAINT NO. CC005000000461143 /2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRIYANKA RAJENDRA SHINDE & ANR. …

COMPLAINANT

VERSUS
M/S AVIOR MERLIN VENTURES LLP …
RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, GAURAV MOHAN BARU, R/O A-47, ROOM NO.2, HIMALAYA APERTMENT,

SECTOR NO. 15, AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI-400708. do herby solemnly affirm
the state as under:
1. That I am the complainant in the above-mentioned matter and as such I am

well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case hence, I am

competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Rejoinder has been drafted by my counsel under my

instructions and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and

parcel of this affidavit as the same has not been produced herein for the sake

of brevity.

3. That the contents of the accompanying Complaint are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge, information and belief, no part of it is false and no

material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this the.......day of ……………..............that the contents of

the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief, no part of it is false and no material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT