Order Complaint No. 292 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 292 of 2024
29th September 2025
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Quorum:

Shiva Shankar Reddy
(S/o.Late Vijaypal Reddy, Aged 26 years,
Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-714/2,
Mallikarjuna Heights, Bhagathnagar,
Karimnagar – 505001)
…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s. Sunrise Constructions
(H.No.25-33/5/1, V. Gopal Reddy Complex,
Mallikarjuna Nagar, Beeramguda Kaman,
Ramachandra Puram, Hyderabad - 500050)

2. CH. Bal Reddy
(S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged about 62 years,
Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. 120,
Aster Block, Bhanu Township,
Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500049)

3. Udhay Bhaskar Reddy
(S/o. K. Laxma Reddy, Age: 57 years,
Occ: Business, R/o. Villa No.34,
Vajram Aster Homes, Gopanpally,
Serilingampally, Rangareddy District,
Telangana - 500046)

4. Krishna Reddy
(H.No. 25-36/5/K, Road No.5,
Mallikarjuna Nagar, Beeramguda,
Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad - 502032)
…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant came up for hearing on 19.06.2025 before
this Authority. The Complainant appeared through virtual mode. Respondent No.1, represented by
Respondent No.2, was present in person. Respondent No.3 was represented by his counsel, Sri Y.
Soma Srinath Reddy. Respondent No. 4 remained absent. Upon hearing the submissions of the
Complainant, this Authority proceeded to pass the following ORDER:

1

---

The 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 on behalf of the Complainants:
3.

The Complainant respectfully submits that a flat no. 411 in "Sunrise Abode," located at

Survey No. 141 and 142, Beeramguda Main Road, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Ramachandrapuram,
Telangana, was purchased by the complainant through the Respondent no. 2, Ch. Bal Reddy, with
the involvement of mediators, Mr. Krishna Reddy and B. Galanuna. The mediators, who are
relatives of the Respondent no. 2, assured the complainant that they would take responsibility for
the flat's registration. Trusting their assurance, the complainant proceeded with the purchase.
4.

The Complainant bought a flat for a total sale consideration of Rs. 67,25,000/- and the

Respondent no. 2 promised to deliver possession within six months from October 2022. An
advance payment of Rs.50,00,000/- was made to the Respondent no. 2, and an Agreement of sale
was executed on 20.10.2022. However, the agreement mentioned only Rs.40,00,000/- as the
advance consideration, omitting any deadlines for possession or registration.
5.

Subsequently, on 01.06.2023, an additional Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the Respondent no.

2, and the complainant requested the registration of the flat. Despite this, the Respondent no. 2
became unresponsive, even accusing the complainant of poor communication. Later, the
Respondent no. 2's assistant, B. Trinath, informed the complainant that the flat construction was
complete and requested registration. However, the Respondent no. 2 demanded an extra
Rs.1,50,000/- as interest, which the complainant paid to the assistant's bank account on
14.03.2024. This brought the total payment to Rs.51,50,000/6.

Moreover, in February 2024, the Respondent no. 2 offered to facilitate a loan through

Canara Bank. To this end, a new agreement of sale was executed on 01.03.2024, citing a reduced
property value of Rs.37,50,000/-, which included an inflated remaining balance of Rs.27,00,000/(instead of the correct amount of Rs. 17,25,000). When the complainant objected to the inflated
figure, the Respondent no. 2 cancelled the loan process and issued threats to pay the remaining
balance within three days.
7.

Further, on 16.04.2024, the Respondent no. 2's assistant raised a registration challan and

instructed the complainant to pay the amount at SBI, Karimnagar. The complainant compiled by
paying Rs.2,85,450/- for registration and stamp duty and an additional Rs.12,500/- to the assistant
2

---

The Complainant has incurred a total expense of approximately Rs.55,00,000/- including

loan processing and registration charges. Frustrated by the delay, the complainant issued legal
notices to Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 on 14.09.2024, demanding compensation for
the delay and registration of the flat. However, there has been no response from the Respondent
no. 2 or his associates.
B. Relief Sought:
9.

In light of the foregoing grievances, the Complainant has sought the following reliefs from

the Authority:
a. To direct, Registration of Flat for which the loan has been sanctioned already on 04-Apr2024 and already paid the Registration challan on 16-Apr-2024. Now the Loan Sanction
letter will expire on 03-Oct-2024/04-Oct-2024 and Registration challan will expire on 15Oct-2024.
b. Hence, requesting this Authority to direct Respondent no. 2 to Register the said property
Flat No. 411 on Fourth Floor West face in “SUNRISE ABODE” with car parking along
with an undivided share of land 58 sq. Yards in Survey No. 140 and 141 situated at
RAMACHANDRAPURAM village and Mandal and GHMC, SANGAREDDY
DISTRICT.
C. Counter filed by the Respondents 1, 2 & 4:
10.

The Respondents submits that the Complainant alleges that Flat No. 411 could not be

registered due to non-cooperation by Respondent No. 3. According to Telangana RERA Rules,
registration requires consent from 53% of shareholders. The Complainant asserts consent from:
•

Ch. Bal Reddy (10%) {R2 Respondent no. 2}

•

M. Varalaxmi (10%)

•

Ch. Nischal Kumar Reddy (9%)

•

B. Ranjitha Reddy (9%)

•

P. Giridhar Reddy (15%)

Respondent No. 4 has applied to RERA for striking off his name, rendering his shareholding
status disputed and irrelevant to the computation of consent. As a Legal Defense, Under Section
15(1) of the Telangana RERA Rules, consent from 53% of shareholders is sufficient for
registration. The Complainant has already secured valid consent from the requisite majority
3

---

The Respondents submitted that the Respondent No.4 has formally sought removal from

the project's records. Until TGRERA adjudicates his application, his shareholding cannot obstruct
registration based on valid consent.
12.

The Respondents respectfully stated that the Complainant's insistence on Respondent No.

3's cooperation is legally untenable. The law mandates “majority consent”, not unanimity.
D. Additional Counter filed by Respondent 2:
13.

The Respondent No.2 respectfully submits that he is well acquainted with the facts of the

case. He, along with Respondent No.4 and 8 others were the partner in Respondent No.1 firm,
registered on 14.07.2022 under Registration No.669 of 2022, pursuant to a reconstituted
partnership deed dated 25.11.2021. The firm operates from Flat No.120, Aster Block, Bhanu
Township, Miyapur, Hyderabad, and undertakes construction of residential and commercial
complexes, land development, and related projects.
14.

The Respondent No.2 states that the partners agreed for construction of an apartment in

Sy Nos.141/AA, 142/AA, 141/EE2, 142/EE1, 141/EE1, 142/EE, 141/E & 142/E admeasuring
2974.79 Sq. Yards at Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, consisting of 1 Cellar +
Stilt + 5 Upper Floors with permission No.1/C22/14176/2020 in the name “Sunrise Adobe”. The
partnership shares were divided among 10 partners as per the Reconstitution Deed i.e., as follows;
Name of Partners

Share of Partners

K. Uday Bhaskar Reddy

15%

K. Haritha

17%

Ch. Bal Reddy

10%

M. Varalakshmi

10%

Ch. Nischal Kumar Reddy

9%

A. Gopal Reddy

5%

A. Mahipal Reddy

5%

G. Puspha Latha

9%

B. Rajitha Reddy

15%

P. Giridhar Reddy

15%

Total

100%

4

---

The Respondent No.2 states that due to internal disputes between two partners, a legal

notice dated 14.05.2024 was issued to the Complainant demanding stoppage of works. Flat
No.411 fell into the share of Respondent No.2 as per the Reconstitution of Partnership Deed, and
an agreement with the Complainant was entered on 20.10.2022, with payments credited to the
firm’s account. He further submits that Respondent No.3 sold his share of 12,870 Sq. Yds. at
Rs.800/- per Sq. Ft. to third parties without the knowledge of other partners through a
Memorandum of Understanding and has since been unresponsive to calls or registration, creating
hurdles for registration of remaining flats.
16.

The Respondent No.2 states that along with partners Ch. Bal Reddy (10%), M.

Varalakshmi (10%), Ch. Nischal Kumar Reddy (9%), B. Rajitha Reddy (9%), and P. Giridhar
Reddy (15%), they hold a total of 53% share in the apartment and are ready to register flats in the
buyers’ names. Therefore Respondent No.2 prays that this Hon’ble Authority authorize him as
the authorized person to execute registration of Flat No.411 in “Sunrise Adobe” and to register
other already sold flats, in the interest of justice.
E. Counter filed by the Respondent 3:
17.

The Respondent No.3, respectfully submit that this complaint is void ab initio as the

transaction between the complainant and Respondent No. 1 is civil in nature. The complainant's
relied upon an unregistered Agreement of Sale lacks validity due to insufficient stamp duty and
registration. The Complainant has approached the Hon'ble Authority with misrepresentation and,
therefore, this complaint should be dismissed.
18.

The Respondent No.3, submit that the complainant's allegations are false. The

Complainant expressed interest in purchasing Flat No. 411 at Sunrise Abode, but I have no
connection to the alleged mediators, Respondent No.4 and B. Galamma. The Complainant must
provide proof for his claims.
19.

The Respondent No.3 respectfully submits that the allegations made by the Complainant

are absolutely false, baseless, and denied. It is specifically denied that the Complainant has paid a
sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to Respondent No.1 firm, as alleged. The
Complainant has, in fact, paid only a total sum of Rs.19,90,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ninety
Thousand only) to Respondent No.1 firm. The details of the said payments are set out herein
below:

5

---

Date

Mode

of Reference Number

Amount Paid

Payment
1

20-10-2022

R.T.G. S

SBINR52022102010680367

2

01-06-2023

R.T.G. S

UBINR22023060101474734 4,62,000/-

3

01-06-2023

R.T.G. S

UBINR22023060101480023 5,38,000/Total

20.

9,90,000/-

19,90,000/-

The Respondent No.3 respectfully submits that he never authorized any individual to

collect funds into their personal accounts from the Complainant. The receipts relied upon by the
Complainant are not borne out by the official records and the amounts are not reflected in the
firm’s books, except those acknowledged in the tabular summary. The Complainant is put to
strict proof of these allegations. Further, the Complainant, being a software engineer, was fully
aware of the terms of the Agreement of Sale, which he voluntarily signed and used to secure a
bank loan. The allegations of miscommunication and lack of response are denied as vague,
unsubstantiated, and made only to give rise to a false cause.
21.

The Respondent No.3 denies all allegations pertaining to registration delays and payments

made for the same. It is submitted that the Complainant acted on instructions of unauthorized
individuals without contacting the firm’s authorised representatives, i.e., its partners. No official
communication was made by the firm demanding registration fees, and no authorised person
induced the Complainant to make such payments. The complaint is based on private
arrangements that have no bearing on the firm or the Respondent. The statements regarding
registration delays and inducement are bald, baseless, and denied.
22.

The Respondent No.3 further submits that the Complainant’s claim of having spent

Rs.55,00,000/- remains unsupported. Only the amounts reflected in the firm’s records are
acknowledged. The Complainant never approached the Respondent No.3 or other partners to
clarify these alleged transactions prior to filing the complaint. Two conflicting, unregistered, and
unstamped agreements have been produced by the Complainant, which are legally inadmissible.
Even if the claims are assumed true, the dispute is civil in nature and outside the jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble Authority. Internal disputes among the partners, including a legal notice issued by
two partners to halt registrations temporarily, were also conveniently suppressed by the
Complainant.
23.

Finally, the Respondent No.3 submits that the authorised signatory and Managing Partner

of the firm, Respondent No.3, has acted beyond this authority on several occasions, which has

6

---

The Complainant respectfully submits this rejoinder in response to the counter filed by

Respondent No. 3. Respondent No.1 is a registered partnership firm bearing No. 669 of 2022,
represented by its authorized partners Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3. The firm is a
registered promoter with Telangana RERA (Reg. No. P02500004912) for its project titled
"Sunrise Abode" located at Ramachandrapuram village, Sangareddy District, Telangana,
covering Survey Nos. 141/AA, 142/AA, 141/EE2, 142/EE1, 141/BE1, 142/BE, 141/E & 142/E.
The Complainant had purchased Flat No. 411 on the fourth floor in the said project on the
recommendation of Respondent No.4, who is a relative of Respondent No.2.
25.

A Sale Agreement was executed on 20-Oct-2022 between the Complainant and Respondent

No.1 (represented by Respondents No.2 and 3) for a total consideration of Rs.67,25,000/-, out of
which Rs.40,00,000/- was received by the firm. A subsequent Agreement of Sale was executed
on 01-Mar-2024 for Rs.37,50,000/-, wherein it was agreed that the said flat would be handed over
within 12 months. Despite these agreements and payment of Rs.51,50,000/- in total by the
Complainant, the Respondents failed to execute the registration or hand over possession of the
flat, thereby violating the terms of both agreements. The Respondents were well aware of the
payments received, and relevant receipts have been enclosed with the main complaint.
26.

The Complainant strongly denies the false and misleading statements made by Respondent

No.3, particularly mentioned in the counter. The Respondent falsely claimed that only
Rs.19,90,000/- was paid, omitting the Rs.40,00,000/- acknowledged in the first Sale Agreement
dated 20-Oct-2022. As stated by Respondent No.3 in Para 7 of his own reply, when both parties
sign a Sale Agreement, they are deemed to be aware of its contents. Hence, the denial of the
remaining payments and omission of the initial payment date in the counter is an intentional act
to suppress facts and mislead the Authority. It clearly demonstrates the Respondent’s mala fide
intention to evade liability.
27.

The Complainant asserts that Respondent No.3 is deliberately attempting to escape

responsibility by making false accusations and denying duly acknowledged payments. The
payments made by the Complainant amounts to Rs.51,50,000/- were made through traceable
banking channels and hand cash (booking amount), all of which were received either by
Respondent No.2, Respondent No.3, or by the firm’s representatives. Respondent No.3’s denial

7

---

Date

1

15-Oct-2022

Hand Cash (Booking Amount)

Rs.1,00,000/-

Ch. Bal Reddy

2

20-Oct-2022

UPI UTR: 265976062493

Rs.20,000/-

Vara Laxmi M

3

20-Oct-2022

RTGS: SBINR52022102010679522 Ref. 360346

Rs.9,90,000/-

Vara Laxmi M

4

20-Oct-2022

RTGS: SBINR52022102010680367 Ref. 360347

Rs.9,90,000/-

Sunrise Constructions

5

27-Oct-2022

RTGS: SBINR52022102711701812 Ref. 914411

Rs.9,90,000/-

Manthena Venkata
Vara Prasad

6

29-Oct-2022

RTGS: SBINR52022102912073286 Ref. 622091

Rs.9,10,000/-

Manthena Venkata
Vara Prasad

7

01-Jun-2023

RTGS: UBINR22023060101474734

Rs.4,62,000/-

Sunrise Constructions

8

01-Jun-2023

RTGS: UBINR22023060101480023

Rs.5,38,000/-

Sunrise Constructions

9

14-Mar-2024

Cheque No: 02047061

Rs.1,50,000/-

B. Trinath

28.

Reference / Mode

Amount Paid

Paid to

The Complainant submits that in Respondent No.3’s counter, the allegations regarding

the manner and date of approach to Respondent No.1 firm are baseless, and Respondent No.3 is
put to strict proof of the same. In response to Respondent No.3 alleges that the Complainant
relied on unregistered Agreements of Sale, yet conveniently omits the fact that it was the
responsibility of Respondent No.1 firm (represented by Respondents No.2 and 3) to ensure those
agreements were duly registered with sufficient stamp duty. The Complainant entered into two
Agreements dated 20-Oct-2022 and 01-Mar-2024 but in both cases, the Promoter avoided
registration, which amounts to a direct violation of their statutory obligations under the RE(R&D)
Act.
29.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent No.3 acknowledges the payments

made, yet offers no justification as to why the Agreements were not registered despite substantial
sums being received. This leads to a fundamental question, did the Respondents register
Agreements of Sale with sufficient stamp duty for other allottees in the “Sunrise Abode” project,
or is this non-registration specific to the Complainant alone. The Complainant calls upon
Respondent No.3 to place on record copies of all registered Agreements of Sale executed with
other allottees, failing which it becomes apparent that the Respondents are engaging in selective
8

---

The Complainant submits that if, as stated by Respondent No.3 in the counter, the

unregistered Agreements of Sale have no validity, then the entire process of executing and
signing these documents by Respondents No.2 and No.3 demonstrates a clear intent to defraud.
How could the Respondents prepare, sign, and deliver such Agreements if they were invalid from
the outset. This clearly shows a premeditated intention to cheat and misappropriate the
Complainant’s hard-earned money under the false pretext of a flat sale. Such acts reflect conduct
involving misrepresentation and unclean hands. Strict legal action must be initiated against all
Respondents.
31.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondents failed to disclose that internal

disputes existed between their partners and that a legal notice had been issued within the firm
restraining project activity. This material information was never communicated to the
Complainant. Despite securing loan approval and paying the registration challan, the
Complainant was denied registration. While the Respondents claim to have halted project
activities, the fact remains that 80–90% of the units are occupied since January 2024, even
without an Occupancy Certificate. This is a violation under the RERA Act. Additionally, O.C.
applications were filed even after the internal disputes arose, including one which was rejected by
the Authority, showing inconsistency and contradiction in the Respondents’ statements. The O.C.
application details are as given below:
Sl.
No.

File No.

Name of Applicant

Initial Action
Date

Status

1

002185/GHMC/0940/SLP1/2025-OC

Sunrise Constructions,
Partnership Firm having
K. Uday Bhaskar Reddy
& Others

24-Feb-2025
(By Rama
Krishna)

In Progress

2

009116/GHMC/4238/SLP1/2024-OC

M/s. Sunrise
Constructions, Partnership
Firm having K. Uday
Bhaskar Reddy & Others

20-Aug-2024
(By Rama
Krishna)

Rejected on
25-02-2025

3

005371/GHMC/2593/SLP1/2024-OC

M/s. Sunrise
Constructions, Partnership
Firm having K. Uday
Bhaskar Reddy & Others

17-May-2024
(By G. Bhavani)

In Progress

32.

The Complainant submits that as per the agreement dated 01.03.2024, the Respondent firm

mentioned the remaining balance amount to be paid as Rs.27,50,000/-, while in reality, the
Complainant had already paid a total of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Respondent No.1 firm prior to
March 2024. The actual balance amount was only Rs.17,00,000/-. When this discrepancy was
9

---

Even after this incident, in a second agreement dated 01.03.2024, the Respondents stated

Rs.10,00,000/- was paid in cash and Rs.17,00,000/- was due. With this, the Complainant
approached Union Bank, Gachibowli, assisted by B. Trinath. However, the bank authorities
raised queries on the cash transaction. It was clarified to the Respondent no. 2 that payments were
made through bank transfers, not in cash. The Respondent no. 2 again retrieved the original
agreement, altered the transaction page to reflect bank payments of Rs.9,90,000/- dated
20.10.2022 and Rs.17,00,000/- as due, and returned the same agreement. This clearly shows that
in two instances, the Respondents took the original agreements and selectively updated only the
payment transaction pages, which were again signed by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3.
34.

A closer examination of the agreement dated 01.03.2024 reveals the payment details are

printed in a smaller font compared to the rest of the pages evidencing that these pages were
tampered with and replaced intentionally. These actions are not just accusations; they reflect the
Complainant's real experience with deceit and lack of transparency. Furthermore, the
Respondents claim internal disputes as reasons for the delay, but these were never communicated
to the Complainant. Respondent No.3’s assertion that the Complainant was aware of internal
issues is denied and strict proof is demanded. These internal disputes are now being misused to
delay registration and avoid responsibility.
35.

Despite the Complainant paying around Rs.55 lakhs (including payment to Respondents,

loan charges, and registration challan), the sale deed remains unexecuted. Respondent No.2 even
promised registration within 2 days during police mediation, which never happened. Legal notice
dated 14.09.2024 sent by the Complainant remains unanswered. Respondent No.1 is a registered
promoter under TG RERA for the "SUNRISE ABODE" project, and is bound to fulfill
obligations. The second agreement clearly promised handover within 12 months. Therefore,
Respondents have failed in their duty. The Complainant prays that this Hon’ble Authority may
take strict action against the Respondents for violating the law and direct them to execute the
registration without delay. The Respondent No.3's evasive response and denial of authority are
misleading and amount to breach of trust.

10

---

From the perusal of the record, and in brief, it is submitted by the Complainant entered

into an Agreement of Sale dated 20.10.2022 in respect of a semi-finished Flat No. 411, situated
on the fourth floor of Block “C” in the project named Sunrise Abode, bearing TG RERA
Registration No. P02500004912, admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. of plinth area including common areas,
with one car parking space, together with an undivided share of land admeasuring 58 sq. yards in
Survey Nos. 141 (part) and 142 (part), situated at Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal under
GHMC limits, Sangareddy District. Subsequently, pursuant to a housing loan sanctioned by the
bank, the Respondents No 1, 2 & 3 executed another Agreement of Sale on 01.03.2024 for the
same flat, reflecting the market value. Both parties have admitted the execution of these
Agreements of Sale during the course of hearing. The total sale consideration agreed between the
parties for the said flat is Rs.67,25,000/-, and since the subsequent Agreement of Sale was
executed in accordance with the prevailing market value, the Agreement dated 01.03.2024, being
the latest, shall be taken into consideration.
37.

Pursuant thereto Complainant submitted that he has so far paid a total sum of

approximately Rs.55,00,000/- including Rs.51,50,000/- directly towards the sale consideration
and an additional amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards registration and loan processing charges.
Despite the Respondent No.2 having initially agreed to deliver possession and complete
registration within six months from October 2022, the Respondents failed to do so. Further that
the Respondent No.2, on multiple occasions, insisted on additional amounts, altered the agreed
terms in subsequent another agreement of sale, and even demanded an unwarranted interest
component of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was paid under pressure on 14.03.2024.
38.

Agreement of Sale dated 01.03.2025, it is specifically mentioned that Respondent Nos.

1, 2, and 3 shall hand over vacant, physical, and peaceful possession of the scheduled property to
the Complainant upon receipt of the full sale consideration along with the charges towards
amenities. Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are obligated to deliver such vacant
possession of the said property to the Complainant.
39.

The Respondents No.1, 2, and 4, in their counter, have contended that under Rule 15(1)

of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, registration of a flat
requires consent from 53% of shareholders, and that the Complainant has already secured valid
consent from the requisite majority of 53%. The said contention is devoid of merit and is not
supported by any provision under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 or the
Telangana Rules framed thereunder. There exists no provision which permits registration based
11

---

Moreover, Respondent No. 2 emphasized that ongoing internal disputes between two

partners have significant implications for the ownership of the flat. It clearly falls under the
shares of Respondent No. 2 as outlined in the reconstitution of the partnership deed. Further,
claiming that the firm indeed received an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- from the Respondent No.2
acknowledging the Complainant’s claim.
41.

Conversely, the Respondent No.3, in his counter, has averred that the Complainant has

paid only a sum of Rs. 19,90,000/- and has specifically denied the Complainant’s assertion of
having paid an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the Complainant acted upon
the instructions of an unauthorized individual without contacting the duly authorized
representatives of the firm, namely its partners. The Respondent submits that only the amounts
duly reflected in the firm’s official records are acknowledged, and that the Complainant never
approached Respondent No.3 or any of the other partners to clarify such disputed transactions
prior to the filing of the present complaint. It is additionally submitted that certain internal
disputes among the partners, including the issuance of a legal notice by two partners directing the
temporary halt of registration, were conveniently suppressed by the Complainant. Furthermore,
Respondent No.3 asserts that he is arrayed herein solely in his individual capacity and not as an
authorized representative of the firm.
42.

Whereas, the complainant asserts that despite receiving Rs. 51,50,000/- through both

bank transfer and hand cash, failed to execute registration or deliver possession of Flat No. 411,
in violation of the Agreements dated 20.10.2022 and 01.03.2024. The Respondents falsely
claimed receipt of only Rs. 19,90,000/-, deliberately suppressing acknowledged payments and
manipulating the transaction pages of the agreements to misstate facts, thereby misleading
financial institutions and obstructing loan approval. Material internal disputes within the firm
were never disclosed to the Complainant, constituting a breach of good faith. The Respondents
executed but failed to register the Agreements, violating their obligations as registered promoters
under the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Despite 80 to 90% occupancy and not applied of the Occupancy
Certificate, possession remains unlawfully withheld. These actions reveal a pattern of deception,
misrepresentation, and wilful breach of statutory obligations.
43.

This Authority notes that Respondent No 1 listed as the authorized signatory and

Respondents No. 2 & 3 are the partners for the project on the TG RERA project registration
12

---

Designation
Authorized Signatory
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner
Partner

From the records and submissions, it is evident that the Complainant’s grievance

primarily concerns the non-registration and non-delivery of possession of Flat No. 411 in the
registered project Sunrise Abode, despite having paid substantial amounts to the Respondents.
The Complainant has placed on record detailed payment particulars showing that the amounts
were transferred to multiple individuals connected with the Respondents’ firm, including
employees of Respondent No. 2 and persons whose names appeared as partners or authorised
signatories on the promoter’s RERA registration portal.
45.

It is pertinent to note that RE (R&D) Act 2016, mandates Section 4 (2) (l) d; and Rule 4

of TG RE (R & D) Rules, 2017, that the 70% of the amounts realised from allottees are to be
deposited in a separate designated project bank account, to be utilised only towards the cost of
land and construction. In the present case, the admitted position emerging from the pleadings is
that significant sums were received in the personal accounts of employees and individuals, rather
than in the designated project account. Such diversion constitutes a direct infraction of the
aforesaid statutory provisions and amounts to a statutory breach.
46.

The Respondent No.3 who’s denial that these amounts were received in any official

capacity is not persuasive for the following reasons:

13

---

The conduct of routing payments through multiple person accounts rather the designated

account appeared to be a device intended to evade the statutory safeguards of ensuring utilisation
for the project.
48.

The Authority holds that the promoters cannot avoid liability by claiming that payments

were paid to unauthorised individuals that such individuals were associated with the promoters
and allottees dealing were through the promoter’s employees.
49. Further under Section 69 of RE (R&D) Act 2016, where an offence under the act has been
committed by company (which includes a partnership firm) by virtue of Section 2(z) of RE
(R&D) Act 2016, every person at time of offence was in-charge of the responsible to the
company for the conduct of its business as well as company itself unit’s basis as well as company
shall be deemed guilty of offence.
50.

The plea of the internal disputes between partners as justification of withholding,

registration is equalled untenable. Once the consideration is paid in the substantial part the
promoter is bound to completed sale and handover the possession in accordance, with the
agreement. In the present case the Complainant has paid approximate Rs. 55,00,000/- including
the amount towards registration and loan processing. The Respondents have failed to execute the
sale deed, despite the fact that the internal disputes have not prevented occupation of 80% to 90%
of the flats in the project since January 2024, even without an occupancy certificate. Which itself
in contravention of the RE (R&D) Act 2016.
51.

Accordingly, the Authority dues that the routing of payments through personal account

instead of the mandatory project account it’s a statutory violation for Respondents been the
persons in-charge of the promoter’s entity of the reviling time are personally liable under Section
69 RE (R&D) Act 2016, any internal disputes between partners were not constitute a value
defence of registration and possession. Therefore, complainant having paid the substantial part of
amount of the consideration is entitled for registration and possession without further delay as per
Section 11 (4) (a) of the RE (R&D) Act 2016, be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities
and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to
14

---

The Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 within 30 days from date of this order execute and register

the sale deed in favour of the Complainant for the Flat No. 411 in project “Sunrise Adobe”. Upon
payment of balance consideration strictly imposes agreement of sale without imposing additional
charges. The Respondents shall handover lawful possession of the said unit to the Complainant
within the same period ensures with the possession peacefully and compliance with sanction plan.
53.

The Respondents are hereby warned that any amount received further concerned project

by the allottees shall be only deposited into the designated project bank account in accordance
with Section 4(1) (d) of the RE(R&D) Act 2016, to ensure proper utilisation for project purposes.
54.

The Authority shall take stringent action if found any such amounts being deviated from the

designated account in future project of the respondents to an extent of declare as defaulters
including individual partners of the Respondent No.1. Furthermore, it is submitted that
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have deviated the payments received from allottees into their personal
account rather than depositing the same into dedicated separate account as mentioned under
Section 4 (1) (d) of the RE(R&D) Act 2016, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
55.

The Preamble to the RE(R&D) Act 2016, underscores the legislative intent to establish a

regulatory authority for the regulation and promotion of the real estate sector, to ensure the
efficient and transparent sale of real estate, and above all, to protect the interests of consumers in
the sector. This legislative intent is pivotal to the interpretation of the scope of the said Act.
56.

In this regard, the Authority deems it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 69

of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, which reads as under:
“Where an Offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person who, at the time, the offence was committed
was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the
conduct of, the business of the company, as well as the company,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly”
57.

Therefore, the Authority views that Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally

liable for the violation of Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, and accordingly, the
Authority hereby imposes penalty under Section 60 of the said Act.

15

---

Based on the facts submitted, evidence on record, and the findings given thereon by us as

discussed herein above, this Authority directs the Respondent the following:
i.

The Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 are hereby directed to execute and register the Sale Deed
in respect of Flat No. 411, in the project titled “Sunrise Abode”, in favour of the
Complainant, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this Order, subject to the
Complainant shall pay the balance sale consideration due amount to the Respondents
No.1,2 &3.

ii.

The Respondents No.1, 2, and 3 are held jointly and severally liable for violation of the
provisions of Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016. Accordingly, this Authority hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs). Upon the Respondents above mentioned under Section 60 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016.

60.

If the Respondent fails to comply with the directions herein, shall attract Section 63 of

the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.
61.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to costs

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member

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

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

16

---