Order Complaint No. 258 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 258 of 2025
30th 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

Sunil Kumar Sahu
(D. No: 201, Devinarayan MGN Enclave
Poonthottam, 1st Street, Nanganallur, Chennai,
Pin: 600114)

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.
(Rep by Managing Director Kakarla Srinivas)
(Plot No: 140/141, Eminent Plaza,6th Phase,
KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Pin: 500085)

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this Authority
in the presence of the Complainant’s authorised representative, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Sahu, and none
appeared on behalf of the Respondents 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 has submitted that he had booked a flat under a pre-launch offer by

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Private Limited for the project titled “Hilton”. At the time of
booking and subsequent payments, the Complainant sought information from the Respondent
regarding the ownership of the project land, the procedure for registration, and the completion

Page 1 of 6

---

The Complainant submitted that, thereafter, the Respondent, without prior intimation

or consent, had allegedly delegated the development and sale activities concerning the said
flats to another entity, Raja Developers. Subsequently, signage of “Raja Developers” appeared
at Block No. 5 of the project site, indicating that they were undertaking construction and sale
of flats therein. The Complainant submitted that, upon seeking clarification from M/s Jayathri
Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. regarding this development and ownership of the project land,
no response was forthcoming despite repeated representations.
5.

The Complainant submitted that they have received a letter from M/s Janapriya

Townships Pvt Ltd., categorically stating that Blocks 2B, 5, and 6 of Janapriya Nile Valley had
not been sold to any developer and would be developed by Janapriya itself. They also warned
potential buyers against booking properties in these towers with any developer, particularly
M/S Jayatri Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd, as such sales under the Hilton are considered illegal.
6.

The Complainant submitted that upon discovering that the “Hilton” project was being

marketed and sold without lawful rights, the Complainant approached the Respondent for the
refund of the amounts paid to the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter issued the following
cheques towards refund and settlement of including an interest amount of Rs. 16,35,000/The details of the cheque as follows;
1. Cheque No. 000204(Bandhan Bank) for the amount of Rs. 16,35,000/- dated
16.10.2022.
7.

The Complainant has submitted that the above Cheque was dishonoured upon

presentation due to insufficient funds. Despite informing the Respondent about the dishonour,
no remedial action was taken.
8.

Thereafter, both of the parties have entered into Refund-cum-Cancellation Agreement

on 03.05.2023, wherein the Respondent undertook to refund the remaining principal amount
of ₹15,00,000/- on or before 15.06.2023, failing which the Respondent would be liable to pay
the said amount along with interest at 12% per annum. However, the Respondent failed to
Page 2 of 6

---

In view of the Respondent’s continued default and failure to honour the terms of the

Refund-cum-Cancellation Agreement, the Complainant approached this Authority seeking
redressal and refund of the said amount along with applicable interest under the provisions of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
B. Relief sought
10.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
Direct the Respondent to refund the total amount with interest.

C. Points to be determined:
11. Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following
questions arise for adjudication:
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
D. Observations of the Authority:
12.

Before further adjudicating on the matter, this Authority takes due note of the repeated

non-compliance by the Respondents, who have failed to appear before this Authority despite
service of multiple notices and affording sufficient opportunities. In view of their continued
absence, the Respondents are hereby set ex parte on 17.07.2025, and the matter is being
adjudicated based on the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed on record by the
Complainant.
13.

Upon perusal of the available documents before this authority submitted by the

Complainant, it is evident that the Complainant have paid Rs. 15,00,000/- for the purchase of
a flat in the “Hilton” project, flat no. 719, on the 7th floor, Block – 5.
14.

The Complainant paid a sum of ₹5,00,000/- each on 19.09.2021, 26.09.2021, and

20.10.2021, aggregating to ₹15,00,000/-, which was duly acknowledged by the Respondent
through payment receipts. Furthermore, the Respondent had issued a cheque in favour of the
Complainant as a refund of the said amount; however, the cheque was dishonoured upon
presentation with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” The Complainant brought this fact to
the notice of the Respondent, yet no corrective measures were taken thereafter. It is also noted
Page 3 of 6

---

However, despite receiving the said consideration, the Respondent neither commenced

any construction activity in the “Hilton” project nor demonstrated any bona fide intention to
fulfil its contractual obligations. Such continued inaction, even after collecting substantial
amounts from the Complainant, establishes a deliberate and dishonest course of conduct on the
part of the Respondent, amounting to deficiency in service and breach of the obligations
imposed under the Act.
16.

In these circumstances, under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, it extends a

clear statutory right to an allottee to seek a refund along with interest where the
promoter/Respondents either fail to complete the project or are unable to hand over possession
within the stipulated timeframe. So, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid along
with applicable interest. In the present case, the issue is not merely one of delay; it is a case of
complete inaction on the part of the Respondents.
17.

In light of the above foregoing observations, this Authority notes that the Complainant

is entitled for relief as mentioned in the main complaint under Section 18(1)(a) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment,
plot or building,
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly
completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or
revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable
on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project,
without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him
in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such
rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as
provided under this Act:

Page 4 of 6

---

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

mandatory statutory processes required for lawful execution of the project. The continued
failure to commence the construction clearly amounts to a violation of the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
19.

Consequently, in light of the respondent’s failure to fulfil its obligations and the

complainants’ clear intention to withdraw, this Authority holds that the respondent is liable to
refund the entire amounts collected from the complainants along with interest, as mandated
under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act.
20.

The interest shall be computed from the respective dates of receipt of payments made

by the complainant to the respondent.
21.

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.
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.
22.

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.
23.

Accordingly, the Complainant entitled for Refund of the amount paid by him to the

Respondents and also with the 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 Marginal

Page 5 of 6

---

F. Directions of the Authority:
24.

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 respondent, M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt Ltd., is hereby directed to refund
the entire amount collected from the Complainant, i.e., 15,00,000, along with interest
at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) within Thirty (30) days
from the date of receipt of this order.
b) The said interest shall be calculated from the respective dates of receipt of each
payment made by the complainant to the respondent until full refund is made.
25.

Failure to comply with the above directions by the Respondent shall attract a penalty

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
26.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. 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

Page 6 of 6

---