Order Complaint No. 113 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
5th Day of August 2025
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Quorum:

COMPLAINT NO.113 OF 2024
Sunchu Santhosh Babu
(R/o. 10-5-342/146/18, Plot No.18, Konda Reddy Nagar
North Lallaguda, Thukaram Gate
Secunderabad – 500017)

…Complainant
Versus
Kapstone Properties India Pvt Ltd,
(Chairman and Managing Director Kakarla
Srinivas – (JAYA GROUP),
H.No.16-2-23/2, 6th Floor, PNR High Nest,
Nizampet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500090)

Bolla Srinivas Rao
(H. No: 1-103, Surya Chandra Rao Peta,
Pandidigudem, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari
dist., Andhra Pradesh – 534425)

BNR Townships Pvt Ltd,
(Managing Director Basireddy Narendha Reddy,
H. No 1-36, Kamsanpally village, Uditiyal, Farooq
Nagar mandal, Ranga Reddy dist., Telangana 509202).

…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.247 OF 2024
Sunkara Kiran Kumar
(FLAT NO: 201, Manikonda Homes
Anjali Gardens, Manikonda
Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy dist.
Telangana- 500089)

…Complainant
Versus
Kapstone Properties India Pvt Ltd,
(Chairman and Managing Director Kakarla
Srinivas – (JAYA GROUP),
H.No.16-2-23/2, 6th Floor, PNR High Nest,
Nizampet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500090)

Bolla Srinivas Rao
(H. No: 1-103, Surya Chandra Rao Peta,
Pandidigudem, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari
dist., Andhra Pradesh – 534425)
1 of 14

---

…Respondents
The present matters filed by the Complainants herein above came up for final hearing
on 25.02.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainants,CC. No.
113/2024, 247/2024, Sri Drupad Sangwan and C Karthikeya Reddy, and none for Respondents
No.1 and 2 despite service of notice which was set ex-parte vide Order dated 07.02.2025, and
for Respondent No.3 through counsel, Sri D. Rajasekhar, Vinod Kumar Lahoti and M. Buchi
Babu, upon hearing the arguments, this Authority passes the following COMMON ORDER:
2.

The present Complaints have been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Rules”) seeking appropriate directions to the Respondents.
A.

The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in the complaint:

3.

The Complainants state that Respondent No.1 entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) with them for the sale and registration of residential plots situated in a
project titled “little woods”, allegedly being developed by M/s Kapestone Properties India Pvt.
Ltd. The subject plots are located at Kamsampalle Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, Telangana.
4.

It is submitted that, pursuant to the said MoU, the Complainants paid certain amounts to

Respondent No.1 towards the proposed purchase of the said plots. However, despite receipt of
the said consideration, the Respondents failed to register the plots in favour of the
Complainants. The Complainants further allege that the project, though marketed as “Little
Woods” by Respondent No.1, is in fact registered with Telangana RERA under the name and
style “Whistling Meadows”, bearing RERA Registration No. P02400002304, by Respondent
No.3.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
5. Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, the Complainants prayed for the following:

2 of 14

---

It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 read the Complaint filed Under Section 31 of

the Act along with Documents filed by the Complainant and having understood the contents
thereof and without prejudice to the contentions stated below, the Respondents submitting the
following reply to the CC No. 247/2024/TG RERA (R.C.No.D/1579/2024/TG RERA) pending
before this Hon'ble Authority.
7.

That the property covered in the present complaint i.e., Plot No.225, admeasuring 183

Sq. Yds in Sy.No.67/P, 68/P, 73/P, 75/P & 76/P, situated at Kamsanpalle Village, Farooq Nagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, TG is belongs to the Respondent No.3 and either the
Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2 are no way concern or relates to the said Plot No.225 and
they have no right to enter into any type of Agreement/s or MOU/s with anybody including the
Complainant herein and as such the alleged execution of MOU dated 31-01-2022, executed
between the Respondent No.1 and 2 with Complainant is not valid and not binding on this
Respondent No.3.
8.

That the alleged MOU dated 31-01-2022 is relates to Plot No.225 is belongs to the

Respondent No.3 and either the Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2 are no way concern or
relates to the said Plot No.225 and they have no right to enter into any type of Agreement/s or
MOU/s with anybody including the Complainant herein and as such the alleged execution of
MOU dated 31-01-2022, executed between the Respondent No.1 and 2 with Complainant is not
valid and not binding on this Respondent No.3 and the alleged MOU shows that the said MOU
executed between them for investment purpose for their business terms and without valid right
or title they dragged the Respondent No.3's Plot i.e., Plot No.225 into the present complaint and
as such the Respondent No.3 is reserving their right to sue or take appropriate action either
under penal provisions or other provisions available under law including damages against them
and the Respondent No.3 is not liable or responsible if any breach caused between the
3 of 14

---

Hence, the Respondent No.3 is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Authority may be

pleased to dismiss the Complaint vide CC No. 247/2024/TG RERA (R.C.No.D/1579/2024/TG
RERA) filed Under Section 31 of the Act by the Complainant with exemplary costs and to pass
such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
D. Rejoinder Filed by the Complainant:
10.

It is submitted that, M/s BNR Townships Pvt Ltd herein Respondent No. 3 is the

original developer of the "Whistling Medows" project consisting of open plots located in
Survey Nos. 67/P, 68/P, 73/P, 75/P, and 76/P in Kamsanpally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal,
Rangareddy District. The total land area involved in this development covers 17 acres and 31
guntas, out of a larger parcel of 18 acres and 2 guntas. The project was officially registered with
the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority under Registration Certificate No.
P02400002304, dated 31.10.2020, confirming its legal status and compliance with state real
estate regulations.
11.

That following several communications and after being persuaded by the

representatives of Respondent No. 1, the Complainant decided to invest in the project. On
28.02.2022, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between Respondent
No. 1. It is respectfully submitted that, at the time of executing the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), the Complainant was led to believe that Respondent No. 1 was acting
as the authorized representative of Respondent No. 3. This belief was induced by the
presentation of an Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, purportedly evidencing
such authority. Relying on this Agreement, the Complainant was persuaded to enter into the
MOU and proceed with the purchase of the said plot. In this MOU, Respondent No. 1 claimed
to be the absolute and unencumbered owner of the offered land and proposed Plot No. 184,
admeasuring 147 square yards, situated in Survey Nos. 67/P, 68/P, 73/P, 75/P, and 76/P, located
in Kamsanpally Village. The offer was made with reference to DTCP Approval letter Roc. No.
123031/788/2020c-panchayat, dated 18.08.2020. In addition, Respondent No. 1 promised to
provide monthly returns of Rs. 30,000 on an investment of Rs. 10,00,000 for a period of 36
months from the date of the last payment. It was further assured that the plot would be
4 of 14

---

That after trusting these promises, the Complainant made all the required payments to

Respondent No. 1. However, despite repeated calls and attempts to communicate, the
representatives of Respondent No. 1 became unresponsive, leading to significant delays in both
the registration process and the payment of the promised returns. Over time, the Complainant
discovered that many other allottees in the project had also been misled by Respondent No. 1 in
a similar manner.
13.

That despite patiently waiting for the promised returns and plot registration, the

Complainant was left with no choice but to approach this Hon'ble Authority, as Respondent No.
1 failed to honor their commitments, giving nothing but false assurances. To date, the promised
plot registration has not been completed, nor has the sum of Rs. 30,000 per month in returns
been provided.
14.

That in the complaint filed before the Hon'ble Authority, the plot number was

erroneously and inadvertently mentioned as Plot No. 148, whereas the correct plot number, as
stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.02.2022, is Plot No. 184.
15.

That the Complainant herein, at the very outset unequivocally denies all the averments

made by Respondent No. 3 in the Counter Affidavit filed by them. reflected in the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.02.2022. Furthermore, it is categorically denied that
Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 have no concern or relation with the property in question. The
Complainant was shown by Respondent No. 1 an Agreement of Sale cum General Power of
Attorney, which explicitly indicated that the said plot was within the purview of Respondent
No. 1. Additionally, the Complainant was led to believe that both Respondents No. 1 and No. 3
acted in concert. By virtue of executing the Memorandum of Understanding, both Respondents
were well aware of each other's actions and representations. Therefore, the execution of the
MOU dated 28.02.2022 between Respondents No. 1, No. 3, and the Complainant is valid and
binding on Respondent No. 3, contrary to the assertions made in the paragraph.
16.

The Complainant denies the allegations as false and incorrect and put them to strict

proof of the same. The Complainant denies the claim that the MOU dated 28-02-2022 relates
solely to Plot No. 148. It is reiterated that the correct plot number is Plot No. 184, and the
earlier reference to Plot No. 148 was made inadvertently. The Complainant denies the assertion
that Plot No. 184 exclusively belongs to Respondent No. 3 and that Respondents No. 1 and No.
5 of 14

---

In view of the above-mentioned facts, circumstances and law, it is humbly prayed

before this Hon'ble Authority that it be pleased to allow the present complaint with the reliefs
prayed in the Complaint and be pleased to pass such other order or order as this Hon'ble
Authority deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

E. Observations of the Authority:

6 of 14

---

Upon issuance of notice, Respondent No.3 entered appearance through Counsels Sri D.

Rajasekhar, Sri Vinod Kumar Lahoti, and Sri M. Buchi Babu. However, there was no
representation from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite due service of notice. Even after repeated
opportunities, the said Respondents failed to appear or submit any reply before this Authority.
Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were set ex parte vide Order dated 07.02.2025.
19.

The Complainants have sought either registration of the plots or refund of the amounts

paid. For clarity, the relevant factual matrix is tabulated as under:

20.

S.No

Complaint
No.

1.

113/2024

Complainant Name

Amount Paid
(Rs.)

Memorandum of
Understanding
date
28.02.2022

Sanchu Santhosh
10,00,000
Babu
2.
247/2024
Sunkara Kiran
12,80,817
31.01.2022
Kumar
Both Complainants entered into separate Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with

Respondent No.1, namely M/s Kapestone Properties India Pvt. Ltd., who claimed to be the
absolute and unencumbered owner of the subject lands situated in Survey Nos. 67/P, 68/P, 73/P,
75/P & 76/P at Kamsampalle Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, relying upon
DTCP approval vide Roc. No. 123031/788/2-2 dated 18.08.2020. The MoUs further stipulated
that Respondent No.1 would provide fixed returns until registration of the plots was completed.
21.

The Complainants assert that the aforementioned lands form part of a real estate project

titled “Whistling Meadows”, being developed by Respondent No.3, over a land extent of 17
acres and 31 guntas (out of a larger area of 18 acres and 2 guntas), which stands duly registered
with Telangana RERA under Project Registration No. P02400002304
22.

It is further alleged that Respondent No.3, acting in concert with Respondent Nos.1 and

2, facilitated and induced the Complainants to invest in the project under the guise of an
Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (AGPA), wherein it was represented that
Respondent No.1 had received certain plots from Respondent No.3 and was thereby authorised
to transact with third parties. The Complainants contend that the acts of Respondents Nos.1 and
3 were collaborative and in concert, and thereby jointly facilitated the marketing and sale of the
subject plots.
23.

While Respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte, Respondent No.3 has denied all

allegations and disowned any connection with the MoUs. It is contended that Respondent Nos.1

7 of 14

---

This Authority has perused the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney

dated 11.01.2022 executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.2, authorising the
latter inter alia to execute sale deeds either in his own name or in favour of third parties, to
collect sale consideration, to present documents for registration, and to otherwise act on behalf
of Respondent No.3 with respect to specified plots in the Whistling Meadows project notably
Plot Nos. 214, 215, 219, 220, and 221.
25.

However, the MoUs entered into with the Complainants were executed by Respondent

No.1. Upon examination of the records available in the public domain, including those from the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, it is observed that M/s Kapestone Properties India Pvt. Ltd.
(Respondent No.1) is a company having two designated Directors Mr. Srinivas Kakarla (DIN:
08755884) and Mr. Srinivas Rao Bolla (DIN: 08755885), who is also Respondent No.2 herein.
Both individuals are listed as Promoters.
26.

It is, therefore, surprising and unacceptable that Respondent No.3 seeks to disclaim all

liability despite having executed a registered AGPA dated 11.01.2022 in favour of Respondent
No.2, who is a Director and Promoter of Respondent No.1 the very entity that entered into
MoUs with the Complainants. The Authority finds that the connections between the
Respondents are direct, substantial, and cannot be overlooked. The denial of association by
Respondent No.3 is not only disingenuous but amounts to a gross misrepresentation before this
Authority and is accordingly rejected.
27.

It is evident that Respondent No.3, by virtue of executing the AGPA in favour of

Respondent No.2 who holds the position of Director in Respondent No.1 enabled the latter to
market and sell plots in the project. The authority to execute agreements, collect consideration,
and present documents for registration was unequivocally conferred by Respondent No.3.
Consequently, this Authority holds that Respondent No.3 was not only complicit but was fully
aware of and facilitated the transactions that gave rise to the present grievances.
28.

This Authority also notes that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not possess any registered

legal right, title, or interest in the plots allegedly allotted to the Complainants. However, the
conduct of Respondent No.1 in marketing, negotiating, and collecting sale consideration clearly
constitutes unauthorised activity in violation of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

8 of 14

---

29.

these unauthorised acts or to protect the interests of the allottees. Rather, by empowering
Respondent No.2 a Director of Respondent No.1 through a registered AGPA, it directly
contributed to the unauthorised acts that followed.
30.

With regard to the relief sought for registration of the subject plots, this Authority is of

the view that the same is not maintainable in the present case in the absence of valid title and
legal transfer. The AGPA executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.2 pertains
only to certain plots, and the plots claimed to have been allotted to the Complainants do not
form part of the said AGPA. Further, there is no clarity placed on record as to whether the said
plots are vacant, encumbered, or otherwise free from third-party claims. In the absence of any
conclusive documentation establishing title, possession, or the right to convey the said plots in
favour of the Complainants, the Authority finds no merit in the relief sought. Accordingly, the
request for registration is rejected.
31.

As to the alternative prayer for refund, this Authority is of the considered opinion that

the Complainants are entitled to relief under Section 18(1)(b) of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. Where a promoter fails to complete or is unable to deliver
possession in accordance with the terms of agreement, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the
amounts paid along with applicable interest.
32.

In the instant case, Respondent No.3 empowered Respondent No.2 via AGPA to act on

its behalf. Respondent No.2, in his capacity as Director and Promoter of Respondent No.1,
executed MoUs and collected consideration from the Complainants. Though Respondent No.3
did not directly enter into the MoUs, it must bear joint responsibility owing to its enabling
actions.
34.

Therefore, this Authority holds that Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3 are jointly and severally

liable to refund the amounts collected from the Complainants:
a)

Respondent No.1 is liable for executing the MoUs and receiving consideration;

b)

Respondent No.2 is liable as the AGPA holder of Respondent No.3 and Director of
Respondent No.1;

c)

Respondent No.3 is liable for empowering Respondent No.2 through a registered AGPA
to act on its behalf with respect to specified plots.

9 of 14

---

Accordingly, this Authority directs that the amounts paid by the Complainants be

refunded jointly and severally by Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3, along with interest calculated
from the date of each respective payment. The rate of interest shall be in accordance with Rule
15 of the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017 i.e., the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost
of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%.
36.

While the role of Respondent No.1 as a promoter is clearly established, this Authority is

required to examine whether his actions constitute a contravention of Section 3 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates that no promoter shall
advertise, market, book, sell, or offer for sale any plot, apartment, or building in a real estate
project without prior registration with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, where the project
exceeds 8 plots or 500 square metres.
37.

Respondent No.1, in the Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) executed with the

Complainants, represented himself to be the absolute owner of the land situated in Survey Nos.
67/p, 68/p, 73/p, and 75/p, and further claimed to have obtained DTCP approval for the layout
vide Letter No. Roc.123031/788/2020/e-Panchayat dated 18.08.2020.
38.

The layout plan displayed by Respondent No.1 bearing the proposed layout number

T.L.P No. 174/2020H, titled under the project name “Little Woods” and carrying the logo of
Jaya Group indicates that Respondent No.1 was actively engaged in the marketing,
advertisement, and offer for sale of plots in a real estate project covering a total area of 85,031
square yards, comprising 240 plots.
39.

This clearly exceeds the threshold limits laid down under the first proviso to Section

3(2) of the Act and thereby disqualifies the project from registration exemption. Consequently,
Respondent No.1’s actions of marketing and offering plots for sale without RERA registration
squarely fall within the ambit of violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D)Act.
40.

Accordingly, this Authority finds that Respondent No.1 has contravened Section 3 of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and such contravention attracts the
penal consequences stipulated under Section 59 of the RE(R&D)Act.
41.

Further, this Authority notes that while the entity Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.

stands declared as a defaulter, it is evident from the facts and documents on record that Mr.
Kakarla Srinivas, as the Managing Director and active controlling mind behind multiple entities
including M/s Kapestone Infra, M/s Jayathri Relaibties India Pvt Ltd, M/s Jaya Group, and
10 of 14

---

The actions of Mr. Kakarla Srinivas reveal a deliberate and continuing abuse of the

corporate form. He has systematically evaded regulatory oversight, deceived consumers, and
misappropriated funds in clear and blatant contravention of law. This Authority is of the
considered view that Mr. Srinivas has not merely acted on behalf of the corporate entities, but
has in fact been the direct and active beneficiary of the amounts collected from allottees by
falsely claiming ownership and control over lands and projects. His conduct, therefore, amounts
to unfair trade practices, wilful misrepresentation, and intentional violation of the provisions of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
43.

In light of the above, this Authority is of the firm opinion that this is a fit case for

invoking the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. The principle, well-recognized in Indian
jurisprudence, enables regulatory and judicial forums to look beyond the corporate identity
where such identity is used as a façade to perpetuate fraud or evade obligations. Allowing Mr.
Srinivas to shelter behind the corporate veil would render the regulatory mechanism under the
Act ineffective, and embolden other promoters to misuse the corporate structure to evade
personal responsibility while unlawfully enjoying the hard-earned money of allottees.
44.

This Authority underscores that its primary mandate under the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 is to safeguard the interests of allottees, promote transparency and
accountability in the real estate sector, and curtail fraudulent practices that undermine the
confidence of consumers. Any conduct that amounts to misrepresentation, unauthorised
marketing, or collection of funds in violation of the RE(R&D) Act, directly impacts the rights
of innocent homebuyers and threatens the integrity of the regulatory mechanism.
45.

Therefore, in discharge of its statutory obligation to uphold consumer protection, this

Authority deems it necessary not only to grant appropriate relief to the aggrieved allottees, but
also to ensure that erring promoters and individuals are held accountable for their actions.
Failure to do so would defeat the very purpose and spirit of the RE(R&D) Act, which aims to
bring long-overdue reform and discipline to the real estate sector.
46.

Accordingly, this Authority finds that Mr. Kakarla Srinivas, having direct and wilful

involvement in the unauthorised activities of Respondent No.1 and other associated entities, is
11 of 14

---

In view of the above and in exercise of powers under Section 34(f), Section 35 and

Section 37 of RE(R&D) Act, the Authority directs the Secretary, Telangana RERA, to:
a. To declare Mr. Kakarla Srinivas individually as a "Defaulter" under the provisions
of the RE(R&D) Act, for contraventions established in this matter;.
b. To prominently display his photograph and name, along with the names of
associated entities including M/s Kapestone Infra, M/s Jayathri Relaibties India Pvt
Ltd, M/s Jaya Group and any other connected firms or entities, under a dedicated
column titled “Defaulters’ List” on the official website of Telangana RERA;
c. To initiate a comprehensive investigation into other possible instances of pre-launch
marketing, unauthorised advertisement and sale of plots, or similar regulatory
violations committed by Mr. Kakarla Srinivas under various company names, and
take further action as warranted under the RE(R&D) Act. Place the report before this
Authority for further necessary and stringent action under the Act and Rules.
48.

With regard to Respondent No.3, this Authority expresses strong disapproval of the

evasive and contradictory conduct displayed. Despite executing an Agreement of Sale cum
General Power of Attorney (AGPA) in favour of Respondent No.2, thereby enabling substantial
promoter-like powers, Respondent No.3 has disclaimed responsibility for Respondent No.2’s
actions.
49.

Such ambiguous delegation of authority causes confusion, facilitates misrepresentation,

and leads to exploitation of innocent allottees. This Authority sternly cautions Respondent No.3
against executing vague, unrestricted AGPAs without robust safeguards. Any future repetition
of such conduct shall attract proceedings under Sections 7 and 59 or any other relevant
provision of the RE(R&D)
50.

If this Authority, upon future complaints or investigation, finds that Respondent No.2

has further misused the AGPA in relation to the project, in a manner prejudicial to allottees or in
violation of the RE(R&D) Act, stringent action shall also be taken against Respondent No.3.
51.

This Authority also finds it necessary to caution the Complainants, who despite certain

red flags, failed to perform elementary due diligence. The Complainants were aware that the
project shown by Respondent No.1 did not match the name or details available on the RERA
12 of 14

---

In view of the foregoing findings and in exercise of the powers conferred under the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority issues the following directions:
A. The Complainants in Complaint Nos. 113/2024 and 247/2024 are entitled to a
refund of the amounts paid, i.e., ₹10,00,000/- and ₹12,80,817/- respectively, from
Respondent No.1, Respondent 2 and Respondent no.3. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3
are hereby held jointly and severally liable to refund the amounts collected from the
respective Complainants.
B. The said refund shall be made along with interest calculated from the respective
dates of receipt of each amount, at the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, i.e., the
prevailing SBI MCLR plus 2%, (9% plus 2% ) until the date of actual refund.
C. The said amount shall be refunded within a period of 30 days from the date of this
Order.
D. For violation of Sections 3 and 4 i.e., for non-registration of the concerned project
the Respondent is liable for penalty under Sections 59 and 60 respectively, therefore,
the Respondent 1 is directed to pay penalty of Rs. 21,08,385/- (Rupees Twenty one
lakh eight thousand three hundred and eighty five only ) payable within 30 days
from the date of this Order, in favour of TGRERA FUND through a Demand Draft
or online payment to A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code:
HDFC0007036;
E. The Secretary, Telangana RERA, is directed to:
a) To declare Mr. Kakarla Srinivas individually as a "Defaulter" under the
provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, for contraventions established in this matter;.
b) To prominently display his photograph and name, along with the names of
associated entities including M/s Kapestone Infra, M/s Jayathri Relaibties

13 of 14

---

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondents shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
54.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

14 of 14

---