Interim Order Complaint No. 47 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
I.A.No.47 of 2024 of
COMPLAINT NO.151 OF 2024
I.A.No.43 of 2024 of
COMPLAINT NO.152 OF 2024
I.A.No.44 of 2024 of
COMPLAINT NO.153 OF 2024
I.A.No.45 of 2024 of
COMPLAINT NO.154 OF 2024
I.A.No.46 of 2024 of
COMPLAINT NO.155 OF 2024
Dated 21st October, 2024
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

Between
1. Sri Thatipali Rohit
2. Smt. T. Radhika
3. Smt. G. Soumya
4. Sri G. VenkataSatyanarayana
5. Sri T. ShekharBabu
And
1. Sri N.V.Subha Rao
2. Smt Gokuraju Sita Devi
3. M/s Namitha Builders
4. M/s Shreemukh Namitha Homes Private Ltd
5. Sri K Srikanth
6. Mr.Vijay Kumar

…Complainant(s)

…Respondent(s)

The present Interim Applications, filed by the complainants, came up for
hearing before this Authority on 18.10.2024, in the presence of the Counsel
for the Complainants Sri Drupad Sanghvi, the Counsel for Respondents 1 &
2 Sri Naga Deepak, the Counsel for Respondents 3, 4, & 5 Sri Kasi
Nageshwara Rao, and Mouli Chandrashekar representing Respondent 6 and
Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 sought time to file a reply counter, while
Counsel for Respondents 3 to 5 filed counter and requested additional time
to file a detailed counter. Counsel for the complainants raised objections to
granting additional time and prayed for an Interim order. Upon hearing the

1 of 5

arguments presented by the respective Counsel, this Authority hereby
passes the following INTERIM ORDER:
A. Brief Facts of the Complaint

2.

This matter arises out of a batch of complaints filed under Case Nos.

151/2024/TGRERA to 155/2024/TGRERA by five complainants against the
respondents. The core issue pertains to the sale and allotment of residential
apartments in the project titled "Namitha 360 Life," situated at Izzatnagar
Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Serilingampally Circle, within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC),
Hyderabad.
3.

The respondents, Nos. 1 to 4, acting pursuant to a development

agreement, initiated the aforementioned project with RERA Registration No.
P024000009888 and commenced offering flats for sale to prospective
purchasers. The complainants entered into agreements for the sale and
purchase

of

specific

residential

flats,

having

paid

the

entire

sale

consideration as recorded in the sale agreement dated 24.06.2020. However,
despite the receipt of full consideration, the respondents failed to hand over
possession or complete the project within the time period stipulated in the
agreement.
4.

In view of the delay, the matter further escalated when one of the

respondents disputed the validity of the sale agreement, alleging non-receipt
of the sale consideration despite prior acknowledgment of the same. This
dispute culminated in the issuance of a legal notice dated 03.07.2023,
wherein the respondent denied the existence of the sale agreement and
attributed the delays to internal disputes among the company's directors.
5.

Consequently, the complainants seek an interim order restraining the

respondents from alienating or creating any third-party interests in the
property during the pendency of this complaint.
B. Counter on Behalf of the Respondents:

2 of 5

6.

Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 categorically deny the allegations put forth by

the complainants. They contend that the complainants, in connivance with
Respondent No. 6, have attempted to defraud the company. It is their
submission that Respondent No. 6, a former director of Respondent No. 4,
failed

to

fulfil

his

financial

obligations

toward

the

project

and

misappropriated funds by collecting monies from buyers without adhering to
proper accounting procedures. As a result of the non-payment of the sale
consideration as stipulated in the sale agreement, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5
assert that the agreements executed with the complainants were lawfully
cancelled.
7.

Further, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 alleges that Respondent No. 6

abused his position as a director by issuing sale agreements without
receiving full payments from the complainants. They assert that the
complainants have failed to furnish any credible evidence substantiating the
payment of the consideration, and they contend that such payments, if
made, were not deposited into the designated escrow account as required
under RERA provisions. In view of these facts, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5
argue that they are not under any obligation to execute the sale deeds in
favor of the complainants.
8.

Respondent No. 6, Mr. Yerram Vijay Kumar, submits that he, along

with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 4, duly executed the
agreements of sale with the complainants, acknowledging full receipt of the
sale consideration. He emphatically denies the allegations of fraud leveled
against him and asserts that the sale agreements were legitimate and
binding. Furthermore, Respondent No. 6 accuses his co-director, Mr. K.
Srikanth, of misappropriating funds from the project and orchestrating his
removal from the company’s board to gain control of the project and evade
the company's obligations to the allottees.
9.

Respondent No. 6 further

submits that his efforts to bring

transparency and accountability in the financial management of the project
were obstructed by his co-directors, resulting in delays in the project's
completion. In light of these allegations, he prays for a forensic audit of the
3 of 5

company's accounts to uncover the alleged financial misappropriations and
further seeks a restraining order against Respondent No. 4 to prevent the
sale of any disputed properties until the resolution of the present matter.
C. Observations of the Hon’ble Authority:

10.

These Interim Applications were posted on 18.10.2024 for the

counters of Respondents and for hearing. When the matter was taken up for
hearing on 18.10.2024, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 sought
additional time to file their counters, and the counsel for Respondents 3, 4,
and 5 filed counter and sought time, stating that a detailed counter would
be filed on their behalf. The counsel for the complainants strongly opposed
the said request, contending that if time were granted as prayed, third-party
interests might be created over the subject matter, thereby defeating the
very purpose of filing the case. The learned counsel for the complainants
further submitted that if time were granted for the filing of counter by
Respondent 1 and 2, and detailed counter by Respondent 3 to 5, an Interim
Order should be passed restraining the creation of third-party interests until
further orders.
11.

In view of the submissions made by the parties, the questions that

arise for consideration are:
1. Whether Respondents 1 and 2, as well as Respondents 3 to 5, should
be granted time to file their counter and detailed counter respectively
as requested?
2. Whether the complainants' request for an Interim Order, if time is
granted for filing counters, is tenable?
Points:
12.

Admittedly, the case is posted for the counters of Respondents 1 and

2 and for hearing. The counters of Respondents 1 and 2 have not been filed,
and they seek additional time. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counter and wish to
file further detailed counters. The complainants express apprehension that
the Respondents may create third-party interests over the subject property if
time is granted for the aforementioned counters. There is no doubt that the
4 of 5

complainants have paid the full consideration for the flats, and Respondent
6, along with the Managing Director, Respondent 5, have executed an
Agreement of Sale in favor of the complainants. It is also acknowledged that
Respondents 3 to 5 have made allegations against Respondent 6, stating
that the total amount paid by the complainants has not been deposited in
the designated account as required under the RE(R&D) Act.
13.

This Authority cannot, at this juncture, address the disputed

contentions of the parties, as Respondents 1 and 2 still need to file their
counters. Having regard to the said contentions and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Authority is of the considered view that
Respondents 1 and 2 may also be granted time to file their counters.
Meanwhile, there should be an interim order restraining all Respondents
from creating third-party interests over the property agreed to be sold to the
complainants until further orders on this application. It is needless to
observe that such an order, if passed, would not cause any hardship or
prejudice to either party; it would merely preserve the subject property until
orders are issued following the filing of counters and hearing from both
parties.
14.

In conclusion, Respondents 1 and 2, as well as Respondents 3 to 5,

are granted time to file their counters and detailed counters respectively,
until 07.11.2024. In the meantime, there shall be an interim order
restraining all Respondents from creating third-party interests over the
subject properties agreed to be sold to the complainants (i.e., Flat Nos.
1008, 908, 1508, 1104, and 1105) until further orders in this application.
15.

Post this application on 07.11.2024 for the counters of Respondents 1

and 2 and the detailed counters of Respondents 3 to 5, and for hearing.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

5 of 5

6 of 5