Monday, May 20, 2024
HomeNewsTop NewsMahaRERA issues recovery warrants against Skyline Construction

MahaRERA issues recovery warrants against Skyline Construction

MahaRERA order comes after developer failed to refund Vrajesh Hirjee and Kiku Sharda their money.

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has issued recovery warrants under Section 40 (1) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act against Skyline Construction Company for failing to refund their respective investments to actors Vrajesh Hirjee and Raghavendra aka Kiku Sharda in RNA Exotica project in Goregaon.

Skyline Construction is part of the RNA Group and had failed to comply with the MahaRERA orders to refund Rs 1.06 crore and Rs 84.95 lakh with 10.75 per cent interest from 2011 and 2010 to Hirjee and Sharda, both popular for their comic timing.

Hirjee had booked flat no. C-2804 in RNA Exotica project located close to Ram Mandir Road railway station in 2011 with the promise of possession by December 31, 2015, but failed to deliver.

During the hearings, the developer argued that the project was delayed as it is under a rehabilitation scheme and the company had to face several hurdles and litigations.

The developer also contended that the environmental clearance, the height clearance could be obtained after two year and six year delays which were beyond their control.

In February 2019, MahaRERA had issued an order directing the developer to refund Rs 1.06 crore with 10.55 per cent interest, but the order was not complied with nor challenged before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. In July, the actor moved for execution of the refund order due to non-compliance and a recovery warrant was issued. It was submitted to the Collector this week and the total amount to be recovered stood at Rs 1.83 crore.

Kiku Sharda, who was part of the popular Kapil Sharma Show, had booked flat no C-2102 in RNA Exotica in 2010 with a promise to hand over possession in December 2013, and later in December 2017. During the hearings of his complaint, the developer had contended that there was no agreed date of possession and hence relief cannot Section 18 of RERA has not been violated. The advocate for the developer argued that the company had revised the possession date to December 31, 2019 and that date had not been crossed.

MahaRERA, however, rejected the developer’s arguments. MahaRERA member BD Kapadnis held that the developer had revised the possession date to December 31, 2019 without Sharda’s consent, and hence it is “unilateral act” which will not be binding on the complainant. He said the developer cannot deny that they promised possession by December 2017 because while registering the project with MahaRERA, they had mentioned the date and revised it to December 31, 2019.


Most Popular

Hot News