Order Complaint No. 218 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 218 of 2025
Dated: 31st October, 2025
Quorum:

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

Swagatika Sahu
R/o: Flat No: 3626, Janapriya Nile valley,
PJR Enclave, Road No-12,
Chandanagar, Hyderabad - 500050
…Complainant
Versus
M/S Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director, Kakarla Srinivasa
R/o: Plot No: 140/141,
Eminent Plaza, 6th Phase KPHB colony,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500085
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing on 23.07.2025 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant’s authorized
representative Mr. Bikas Ranjan Sahu, and none for the Respondent despite service of notice,
hence set ex-parte and upon hearing the submissions of the Complainant, this Authority
proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & 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 relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant stated that she had purchased a flat under the pre-launch offer of the

“Hilton Project” being marketed and developed by M/s. Jayathri Infrastructures India Private

1 of 6

---

Since the time of purchase, the Complainant has been repeatedly requesting information

from the Respondent regarding the ownership of the project land, registration process, and
completion of other formalities such as execution of the Sale Deed. However, despite several
communications, the Respondent failed to provide any information or demonstrate the rights
and ownership of the said land.
5.

On June 5, 2022, the Complainant received a notice from the Respondent stating that if

the balance amount was not paid by June 8, 2022, the said flat would be cancelled without
further notice. Subsequently, without any prior notice or intimation, the Respondent company
delegated the contract for construction and sale of the flats to another entity, M/s. Raja
Developers and Builders. Thereafter, Raja Developers and Builders displayed their signage at
Block No. 5 of the project, claiming that they had constructed and sold the flats. The
Complainant states that she made multiple representations to Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt.
Ltd. seeking clarification regarding the ownership of land and sale agreements, but received no
response.
6.

Subsequently, the Complainant came across a notice published at Delta Club by

Janapriya Townships Pvt. Ltd., explicitly stating that they have not sold Block 2B, Block 5,
and Block 6 in Nile Valley to any third party, and that they will develop these blocks
independently. They also warned potential buyers against booking properties in these towers
with any other developer, particularly the Respondent herein, i.e., Jayathri Infrastructures India
Private Limited, as such sales under the brand name Hilton are considered illegal.
7.

Following this, the Complainant discovered that the Hilton Project was being developed

illegally, and she sought a refund of the amounts paid. The Respondent initially issued
cancellation receipts and refund cheques in favour of the Complainant, but all the cheques were
dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficient funds.
8.

The Respondent had issued two cheques, Cheque No. 000131 dated 12.10.2022 for

₹10,00,000/- and Cheque No. 000132 dated 14.10.2022 for ₹8,01,350/-, drawn in favour of the
Complainant, representing refund amounts along with interest. Both cheques were returned
unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

2 of 6

---

After the cheques bounced, the Complainant approached the Respondent again

requesting repayment. Subsequently, the Respondent paid ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) through M/s. Jaya Agro Pvt. Ltd. and assured that the balance amount would be paid
within one month. However, thereafter, the Respondent once again stopped responding to the
Complainant’s requests.
10.

Upon insistence by the Complainant, a Cancellation Agreement was entered into on

03.05.2023, wherein the Respondent agreed to pay the remaining amount of ₹11,22,850/- by
15.06.2023, failing which the outstanding amount would carry 12% interest. As per the
Complainant, the Respondent failed to pay the said amount within the agreed time frame, and
as on 02.02.2025, the total outstanding amount, including accrued interest, stood at
₹16,16,710/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Ten only).
11.

The Complainant has submitted that she has paid a total of ₹16,22,850/- to the

Respondent towards booking of flat, through the following transactions: ₹5,00,000/- on 1st
April 2021, ₹5,00,000/- on 8th June 2021, and ₹6,22,850/- on 19th August 2021. Out of the
total amount, the Respondent has refunded ₹5,00,000/-, leaving a balance amount of
₹11,22,850/- yet to be repaid.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
12.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i.

Refund of the total amount of Rs. 11,22,850/-

ii.

Issue order for interest on Rs. 11,22,850/- as processed by the TG RERA Authority.

C. Points to be determined:
13.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

question arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought? If so, to what extent?

D. Observations of the Authority:
14.

The record clearly indicates that despite due service of notice, the Respondent has failed

to appear before this Authority, nor has it filed any written response or made any representation
to contest the allegations made by the Complainant. Such persistent non-appearance and failure
to respond, despite repeated opportunities afforded, demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the
3 of 6

---

Upon perusal of the record, it is observed that the Complainant had purchased a flat

under a pre-launch offer in a project titled “Hilton”, being marketed and promoted by M/s
Jayathri Infrastructures India Private Limited. The Complainant agreed to pay the sale
consideration in instalments, and in pursuance thereof, made substantial payments to the
Respondent aggregating to ₹16,22,850/-, vide payments dated 01.04.2021 for ₹5,00,000/-,
08.06.2021 for ₹5,00,000/-, and 19.08.2021 for ₹6,22,850/-. These payments were duly
acknowledged by the Respondent, and the corresponding receipts have been placed on record
by the Complainant.
16.

However, despite having collected substantial consideration from the Complainant, the

Respondent neither commenced any construction activity in the said project nor demonstrated
any bona fide intention to fulfil its contractual obligations. Such continued inaction, despite
receipt of significant funds, indicates a deliberate and dishonest course of conduct by the
Respondent.
17.

The Complainant has further submitted that although the Respondent had issued certain

cheques towards the refund of the amounts collected, the said cheques were dishonoured upon
presentation due to insufficient funds. The Complainant further stated that despite bringing this
fact to the notice of the Respondent, no corrective steps were taken. Subsequently, the
Respondent refunded only a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 16,22,850/received from the Complainant. The Complainant has, therefore, sought a refund of the balance
amount of Rs. 11,22,850/- along with interest. It is further submitted that though a Refundcum-Cancellation Agreement dated 03.05.2023 was also executed between the parties, the
Respondent failed to adhere to the terms stipulated therein, thereby causing continued hardship
to the Complainant.
18.

Having collected consideration from the Complainant without demonstrating title,

authority, or registration, and having failed to commence or complete any construction or
deliver possession, the Respondent’s conduct squarely attracts the provisions of Section 18(1)
4 of 6

---

In the present case, the Respondent has neither completed the project nor initiated the

mandatory statutory processes required for lawful execution of the project. Such continued
failure to act constitutes a clear violation of the statutory obligations imposed on promoters
under the RE(R&D) Act.
20.

The Complainant has also alleged that the Respondent had unauthorisedly delegated

the development and sale activities relating to the said flats to another entity, Raja Developers
and Builders. However, it is noted that the said entity has not been impleaded as a party to the
present proceedings, nor has any specific relief been sought against it. Accordingly, this
Authority confines its adjudication to the Respondent alone.
21.

It is pertinent to note that this Authority has already adjudicated similar complaints

arising out of the same project, “Jaya Hilton Project”, promoted by M/s Jayathri Infrastructures
India Pvt. Ltd., Complaint No. 163 of 2025 & Ors (Jaya Hilton Batch II). In those matters as
well, the Authority had observed identical patterns of non-compliance, inter alia, the collection
of substantial amounts from allottees under a pre-launch offer and failure to commence
construction within a reasonable period. The Authority had further recorded findings that M/s
Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd., without holding an unencumbered and marketable title
over the subject tower, had nevertheless proceeded to enter into subsequent Memoranda of
Understanding with third parties. It is also significant to note that in the said proceedings, the
Respondent therein, M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd., acknowledged the lapses and
agreed to refund the amounts collected from the respective allottees. The said findings,
observations, and undertakings are therefore squarely applicable and relevant to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
22.

Consequently, in light of the above findings and the respondent’s continued failure to

fulfil its obligations or refund the amount as agreed, this Authority holds that the Respondent
is liable to refund the balance amount of ₹11,22,850/- to the Complainant, along with interest
at the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017, i.e., the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate
5 of 6

---

In accordance with the discussions made above, this Authority, vide its powers under

Sections 37 and 38, issues the following directions to the Respondent:
i.

The Respondent is directed to refund the balance amount of ₹11,22,850/- (Rupees
Eleven Lakh Twenty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Only) along with interest at
the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) calculated from the
respective dates of payment till the date of actual refund. The said refund together with
interest shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.

24.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by the Respondent shall attract penalty

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
25.

In view of the above, the present complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.

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

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

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

6 of 6

---