Order Complaint No. 1684 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 1684 of 2023
14th November, 2025
Coram:

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

Bharatha Raveender
R/o- Qt. No. A-34, Jail Quarters (New)
Chanchalguda, Hyderabad
Telanagana-500024

…Complainant
AND
M/s Krithika Infra Developers
Rep. by 1. D Srikanth, managing director 2. Radha Bhukya
Address for service of all notices
3rd and 4th floor, X Road
Beside Bahar Café, Gunti Jangaiah Nagar, L.B Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500074
Flat No.314, 3rd floor
LPT Market, LB Nagar
Hyderabad, Telangana 500074

…Respondent

The present complaint was listed for hearing before this Authority. The Complainant
appeared in person. Despite due service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
After hearing the Complainant and perusing the material available on record, this Authority
proceeds to pass the following order:
2.

The Complainant filed the instant complaint against the Respondent, seeking a direction

to refund an amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs only), paid as advance
towards the purchase of a flat in the project known as "Regal Oak," situated at Saidabad,
Hyderabad. Upon consideration of the submissions and evidence adduced by the parties, this
Authority, vide its order dated 21-03-2024, disposed of the complaint by directing the
Respondent to refund the balance amount of Rs. 30,50,000/- (after forfeiture of the booking
amount in accordance with the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017) along with interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum, within a period of 60 days.
3.

The Complainant appealed before the Hon’ble Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

(TGREAT), contending that the Respondent failed to comply with the refund direction.

1 of 4

---

On remand, the Authority examined the registration status and finds that the project

"Regal Oak," situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad, stands registered with the Telangana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority under Registration No. P02500008750. The registered Promoter of the said
project is M/s CSK Realtors Limited. In order to ascertain the Respondent's role and authority in
relation to the project, this Authority issued a show-cause notice under Section 35 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, to the registered Promoter, M/s CSK Realtors
Limited. The notice sought clarification on how the Respondent had purportedly obtained rights
to promote the project, entered into agreements, and the precise nature of the Respondent's
involvement.
5.

In reply dated [25.03.2025], M/s CSK Realtors Limited, through its Director Mr. Rakshit

Agarwal, categorically stated that they have no contract or authorization in favour of M/s Krithika
Developers / M/s Krithika Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the RERA-approved project
“Regal Oak” and that any dealings with the Respondent are null and void and do not bind the
registered promoter.
6.

Prior to the original order dated 21-03-2024, a notice was also issued to the Respondent

who, by a counter asserted that the Respondent had commenced development of a multistoried
complex at Saidabad, Hyderabad. It was further stated that the Complainant approached the
Respondent on 28-11-2022 to book a flat and paid an initial advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the
same day. Subsequently, the Complainant paid a total of Rs. 32,00,000/- in installments towards
the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 42,09,300/-. While construction was underway, the
Complainant visited the site. However, approximately two months after booking, on 16-02-2023,
the Complainant submitted a letter requesting cancellation and refund of the advance due to
financial constraints. In response, the Respondent refunded Rs. 50,000/- on 17-11-2023 and
assured the balance would be paid upon resale of the flat to another buyer.
7.

The record contains no documentary evidence establishing any contractual nexus

between the Respondent and the registered promoter, M/s CSK Realtors Limited. The
Respondent appears to have held out the project as its own and collected substantial sums without
lawful authority. Despite service of notices including for personal service after remand, the
Respondent failed to appear before this Authority or produce any documentary clarification

2 of 4

---

It is recorded that the Respondent has obtained registration as a real estate agent with this

Authority on multiple occasions under variant names one as "Krithika Infra Developers"
(Certificate No. A02400001244) and another as "Krithika Infra Developers Private Limited"
(Certificate No. A02400001286). Notwithstanding these agent registrations, however in the
Respondent's own submissions in the counter-affidavit portray it as the developer, responsible
for construction, payment collection, and refunds actions that align not with the role of a real
estate agent under Sections 9 and 10 of the RE(R&D) Act. Those actions are not consistent with
the limited role of an agent under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act but fall squarely within the
statutory concept of a promoter under Section 2(zk)(v) of RE(R&D) Act.
9.

The Authority finds that the actions of the Respondent squarely fall within the definition

of a "promoter" as envisaged under Section 2(zk)(v) of the RE(R&D) Act, which includes "any
other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or
by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of
the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale." The
Respondent's representations, collection of payments, and claims of development evince a mala
fide intent to deceive innocent homebuyers. This constitutes unfair trade practices, wherein the
Respondent solicited funds without legal entitlement over the registered project, which is
promoted by an entirely different entity. An agent facilitates transactions on behalf of a promoter,
without assuming developmental responsibilities or collecting payments in a manner suggestive
of ownership.
10.

The Authority further notes that in Complaint No. 86 of 2025 (order dated 16.10.2025)

the Respondent, M/s Krithika Infra Developers, was earlier declared a “defaulter” for persistent
and willful contraventions of the RE (R&D Act. Multiple complaints against the Respondent
across projects have been recorded, reflecting repeated disregard for statutory obligations.
11.

However, in the present matter the Authority finds that the Respondent's conduct amounts

to indulgence in unfair trade practices and misrepresentation, in violation of provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act. Although the project is registered under a different promoter, the Respondent's
false claims and solicitations undermine the RE(R&D) Act's objectives. The preamble of the said
Act emphasizes protection of homebuyers from such exploitative practices. Reading this in
conjunction with Section 7(1)(c) of RE(R&D) Act, which addresses unfair methods or deceptive
3 of 4

---

Although a penalty under Sections 3 and 4 cannot be levied in the present case since the

registration of the project stands in the name of a different promoter, the Respondent’s act of
falsely projecting himself as the developer of the registered project, collecting consideration from
the Complainant without any lawful authority, and inducing the transaction through
misrepresentation constitutes a clear contravention of the obligations cast upon a promoter under
the RE(R&D) Act. Such conduct squarely attracts penalty under Section 61, read with Sections
37 and 38, being a case of deliberate misrepresentation, fraudulent solicitation of funds, and
unfair trade practice in the real estate sector.
13.

In view of the foregoing discussions and in exercise of the powers conferred under

Sections 37 and 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, this Authority
finds that the Respondent is liable for penalty under Section 61 of the RE(R&D) Act for
misrepresentation and unfair practices, and accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 26,44,751/- (TwentySix Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-One Rupees only) is imposed on the
Respondent. Further, The Respondent shall pay the aforesaid penalty within 30 days from the
date of this order, in favor of the TGRERA FUND, through a Demand Draft or online payment
to Account No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036.
14.

Accordingly, the present complaint stands disposed of in the above terms.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

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

4 of 4

---