Order Complaint No. 756 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.756 OF 2023
31st July, 2024
Corum:

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

Smt Goku Vasanthi
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Jayathri Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
M/s Sandhya Constructions & Estates Private Ltd
M/s Vipnam Avenues LLP
M/s Anuktha West Wave Developers Private Ltd.
M/s PVR Developers
…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 23.04.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant
authorised

representative

Goku

Prabhakar,

Counsel

Ramabika

for

Respondent 1 and Counsel Venkatla Laxmi for Respondent 5 and upon
hearing the arguments of the parties, this Authority passes the following
ORDER:
2.

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

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“RE(R&D) Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
A. Detail of the Project:
S.no

Title

Detail

1. Project Name

Western Weaves

2. Promoter

As per the complaint –

1 of 14

M/s

Jayathri

Infrastructures

Private

Limited.
3. RERA Registered

Not registered

4. Address of the Project

Sy.no.

104,

admeasuring

Ac.2,

situated

at

Nanakramguda,
Serrilingampally

(M),

Ranga

(D),

Reddy

Telangana – 500032.

B. Brief Facts on Behalf of the Complainant:
3. The Complainant has lodged a complaint filing Form M, citing an
executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 12.02.2021,
wherein he has remitted a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- for a commercial
space in the Western Weaves project by M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt
Ltd (Respondent 1). The Complainant alleges that Respondent 1 has not
only failed to commence construction but has also neglected to acquire
the designated land. Consequently, the Complainant seeks relief in the
form of a refund with interest.
4. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that Respondent 1 has not
responded to any calls or messages for years. In fact, a new promoter
has entered the project, and construction is being initiated under a
different name.
C. Relief(s) Sought:
5. Refund of the amount of paid to the Respondent 1 for the commercial
space and interest i.e is Rs.80,00,000/- .

2 of 14

D. Respondent 5 Reply:
6.

Mr. Parimi Venkata Ramana, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Aged: 44 Years,

Managing Director of M/s. PVR Developers India Private Limited, having its
registered office at plot # 122, Prashanthi hills, Khajaguda, Raidurgam,
Hyderabad-500008, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
7.

The Respondent No. 5 respectfully submit that the allegations,

statements and submissions made by the Petitioner in the implead petition
are hereby vehemently denied as the same are untrue and based on
falsehoods. The allegations which are not dealt specifically with and/or not
denied by the Respondent herein should not be treated as admission or
deemed admission on their part and the Respondent reserves the right and
crave leave to file any supplementary submission on any specific issue that
may be raised before this Hon'ble Authority during the course of proceedings.
8.

The answering Respondent herein denies all the adverse allegations

made by the Petitioner and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
Before adverting to the para wise reply of the Petition, the Respondent craves
leave for submitting the following true and real facts to bring the entire case
in correct perspective.
9.

The Respondent No. 5 i.e., M/s. PVR Developers India Private Limited is

a registered company engaged into the business of Real Estate and possesses
a good reputation in the real estate industry. The Respondent No. 5 have
executed premium residential and commercial real estate projects in and
around Hyderabad.
10.

Mr. Parimi Venkata Ramana and Mrs. Aruna Devi Rama Kumari Parimi

are the Directors of Respondent No. 5 and they are also directors of other
companies.
11.

It is submitted that Mr. Parimi Venkata Ramana and Mrs. Aruna Devi

Rama Kumari Parimi are also directors of M/s. Anuktha West Wave
Developers Private Limited i.e., Respondent No. 4 herein along with Mr. Jaya
Chandra Gummadi, Mr. Venu Gopal Vabbilisetty and Mr. Siva Prasad Kyasa.

3 of 14

12.

It is submitted that, the said M/s. Ankutha West Wave Developers

Private Limited have obtained absolute and unconditional development rights
on from multiple land owners vide registered Development Agreement bearing
document No. 16122/2021, dated: 13.08.2021, registered before SRO
13.

It is submitted that all the development activities on are being carried

out in the name of M/s. Anuktha West Wave Developers Private Limited i.e.,
Respondent No. 3 and the officials of the Respondent No. 5 i.e. M/s. PVR
Developers India Private Limited are not concerned with the development of
the project in any manner whatsoever.
14.

It is also submitted that, no hoarding of the Respondent No. 5 is affixed

on the project and no employee or officials of Respondent No. 5 has knowledge
about the project and are not involved with the development of the project.
The Respondent No. 5 is also not advertising the Project in any manner
whatsoever.
15.

On 27/03/2024, the Respondent No. 5 has received the notice of this

Petition and Complaint through Registered Post and through the notice, the
Respondent No. 5 learned that a complaint has been instituted against
Respondent No. 1 herein and the Complainant has filed implead petition
against the Respondent No. 2-5 herein proposing them to implead as
Respondent No. 2-5.
16.

In reply to Para No. 2.4, it is stated that it is true that Mr. Parimi

Venkata Ramana and Aruna Devi Rama Kumari Parimi are also directors of
M/s. Anuktha West Wave Developers Private Limited i.e., Respondent No. 4
herein. However, it is untrue and absolute falsehood to state that
construction activity is being initiated in the name of The Respondent No. 5
i.e., M/s. PVR Developers India Private Limited. The Complainant is put to
strict proof of the same.
17.

In reply to Para No. 2.5 it is stated that, the complainant herself is

admitting that it is not clear to her as to how Respondent No. 1 i.e., Jayathr
Infrastructures India Private Limited has the hierarchy of possessing th rights
4 of 14

or any authority to sell/marketing or register any commercial spac in the
concerned project. It is further submitted that, due to the reasons stat supra,
the Respondent No. 5 is not at all concerned with the Subject Propes nor the
Subject Project in any manner or in any capacity whatsoever, i unjust and
unreasonable to implead Respondent No. 5 in the present complaint as the
Respondent No. 5 cannot contribute in any manner to get clarity on the role of
Respondent No. 1 in the subject property.
18.

In further reply to Para No. 2.5, it is stated that the Respondent No. 5

is not acquainted with Respondent No. 1 and the Complainant. The
Respondent No. 5 has also not entered into any written or oral arrangement
with the Respondent No. 1. Hence, the Respondent No. 5 would not be a
necessary party to this complaint.
19.

In reply to Para No. 3 if the Petition is allowed and if the Respondent

No. 5 is impleaded in the complaint, it will not only result in wastage of
precious time of this Honorable Authority, but also legal injury to the
Respondent No. 5 which cannot be compensated in any manner and it is safe
to state that just for the purpose of harassing the Respondent No. 5 as Mr.
Parimi Venkata Ramana and Mrs. Aruna Devi Rama Kumari Parimi are its
directors, the Petitioner company has approached this honorable court with
this present petition.
20.

It is further submitted that, in Para No. 2.5 of this present I.A., the

Complainant is stating that without any knowledge about the title of the
Respondent No. 1 over the subject project, Complainant has proceeded with
paying huge amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Only) to
the Respondent No. 1. Hence this statement of the Complainant is beyond
reason to believe as in Para No. 2.2, the Complainant herself stated that M/s.
Vipnam Avenues LLP, has executed a Registered Sale Deed vide Document
No. 6021/2021, Dt: 18.03.2021 in favor of Smt. Goka Nagmari (Daughter- inLaw

of

the

Complainant).

Hence, when

the

daughter-in-law

of

the

complainant herself is one of the land owner, the Complainant would have all
the knowledge about the title of the subject property and subject project. It is

5 of 14

safe to state that the complainant has created a concocted story for the
purpose of impleading Respondent No.5 in this present complaint.
21.

Moreover, the Complainant is the right person to bring all the facts on

record as the complainant has paid a huge amount of Rs. 38,00,000/(Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Only) to the Respondent No. 1 towards
commercial space in the project as her daughter-in-law is one of the land
owner.
22.

Therefore this hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the Petition in

limina with exemplary cost and pass such other order or orders as the
Hon'ble court deems fit and proper.
E. Hearing Conducted:
7.

Counsel for Respondent 1 appeared following the issuance of notice but

failed to file a counter or represent their case. Respondents 2 and 4, despite
notice, neither appeared nor filed counters before the Authority. Notices
issued to Respondent 3 were returned, indicating that no such person was
available at the given address. Consequently, Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 4 were
set ex-parte on 23.04.2024.
8.

During the hearing, the complainant submitted that she purchased a

commercial space from Respondent 1 in 2021. The complainant and
Respondent 1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated
12.02.2021 for the purchase of commercial space as a pre-launch offer for a
total sale consideration of Rs. 38,00,000/-, which was paid by the
complainant. According to the MoU, Respondent 1 was supposed to hand over
the project by December 2024 and Register the commercial space by
December 2021, failing which Respondent 1 was to compensate the
complainant. Upon approaching Respondent 1 for the same, Respondent 1
stated that due to legal issues, they were unable to register the commercial
space in the complainant's name. Consequently, due to the non-execution of
the MoU dated 12.02.2021, the complainant is no longer interested in
continuing with the project and wishes to withdraw, requesting the Authority
to direct the respondent to refund the amount along with interest.
6 of 14

9.

Despite repeated directions, Respondent 1 failed to file a reply.

10.

To gain better clarity over the concerned project and to ascertain the

role of Respondent 1, under Section 35 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the
Authority directed the Engineering Staff College India (ESCI) via letter no.
1458/2023/TSRERA dated 10.10.2023 to conduct an inspection and submit
a comprehensive evaluation report of the “Western Weaves” project pertaining
to Respondent 1.
11. On 18.12.2023, ESCI submitted the report stating that the project is a
multi-storeyed building under construction on 5.0 acres of land bearing
survey no. 104/part, currently at the foundation stage, being constructed by
M/s PVR Developers (Respondent 5). The report noted that the foundation
work is in progress by Respondent 5, and the site is under their custody.
Upon inquiry into the locus standi and authority of M/s PVR Developers, the
following facts were revealed:
i. The original landowners are M/s Sandhya Constructions & Estates
Private Limited (Respondent 2), who executed an Agreement of Sale cum
General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of M/s Vipnim Avenues LLP
(Respondent 3) via document no. 4189/2000.
ii. Respondent 3, in their capacity as a designated partner, concluded a
registered sale deed via document no. 6012/2021 dated 18.03.2021 in favor
of Smt. Goku Nagmani.
iii. Similarly, Respondent 3, as a designated partner, concluded 700
registered sale deeds in favor of prospective buyers.
iv.

Subsequently,

the

above

landowners

concluded

a

Development

Agreement cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with M/s Anuktha
West Wave Developers Pvt. Ltd via document no. 16122/2021 dated
13.08.2021 for the construction of commercial/residential apartments.

7 of 14

v. The development agreement indicates that the developer sought a time
frame of 2.5 years with a 6-month grace period from the date of the GHMC
building permit order to complete the project construction.
vi. Directors of M/s PVR Developers, Sri Parimi Venkata Ramana and Smt.
Aruna Dev Kumari Parimi, joined as directors on 20.09.2021 in M/s Anuktha
West Wave and, by virtue of their positions, initiated construction activity on
the subject property in the name of M/s PVR Developers.
vii. The existing building permit order is in the name of M/s Sandhya Hotels
Ltd, B. Sreedhar Rao, via permit no. 1/C20/14094/2019 dated 25.09.2018
for 4 cellars + 3 stilt + 11 upper floors, valid until 25.09.2025. The legal
manager of M/s PVR Developers informed that an application for two
additional upper floors has been filed and is under process.
viii. The agreed period of construction mentioned in the DGPA clause nos. 4
and 7, concluded between the buyers and M/s Anuktha West Wave, is 30
months from the date of obtaining the building permit order, which was
completed by September 2022.
ix. Thus, it can be concluded that M/s Jayathri Infrastructures (Respondent
1) has no title rights or authority as a builder/developer on the subject
property. M/s Jayathri Infrastructures may have acted solely as middlemen
and marketing agents.
12.

Since Respondent 1 failed to provide any substantive evidence regarding

its role in the concerned project, and the ESCI report clearly indicated that,
per the documents presented by Respondents 2-5, Respondent 1 has no
hierarchy over the said project, the complainant filed an implead application
dated 06.03.2024 to implead M/s Sandhya Constructions, M/s Vipnim
Avenues LLP, M/s Anuktha West Wave Developers Pvt. Ltd, and M/s PVR
Developers as Respondents 2-5 in the present matter. I.A. No. 05 of 2024,
dated 06.03.2024, was accepted by the Authority.

8 of 14

13. Subsequently, notices were issued; no representations were made by
Respondents 2-4. Respondent 5 submitted a reply, stating they are in no way
concerned with M/s Jayathri Infrastructures and have not entered into any
MoU or Agreement empowering M/s Jayathri Infrastructures, Respondent 1
herein, to enter into MoUs with the complainant. Denying the allegations,
they submitted that they are not involved with the development of the
concerned project in any manner whatsoever. M/s Anuktha West Wave
Developers have obtained all the development rights. The misunderstanding
regarding M/s PVR Developers' involvement in the project arose because two
of the directors, Mr. Parimi Venkata Ramana and Mrs. Aruna Devi Rama
Kumari, are directors of other companies, including M/s Anuktha Developers.
Therefore, Respondent 5 has no connection with the concerned project or
Respondent 1.
14. As Respondents 2, 3, and 4 made no representations at the final hearing,
the Authority set them ex-parte.
15. Respondent 1 submitted to the Authority that due to the failure of certain
performances by a third party for the project, they are unable to continue.
However, no substantive evidence or written submissions were provided by
Respondent 1's counsel. When questioned about the project, Respondent 1's
counsel was unclear about the project's status in every scheduled hearing.
Additionally, they submitted that they are willing to refund the amount as
they currently have no legal rights over the said project, which is nonexistent, and hence, will not be able to register the commercial space in the
complainant's name.
F. Points for Consideration:
16. After perusal of the pleadings and submissions of the parties:
a. Whether Respondents 1 to 5 are in violation of the RE(R&D) Act?
b. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? If yes, to
what extent?

9 of 14

17. Point a: The Authority has carefully reviewed the material on record and
considered the contentions of the parties, along with the detailed and
comprehensive report submitted by ESCI. It is evident that Respondent 1
entered into an MoU with the complainant on 12.02.2021. A plain reading of
the MoU indicates that Respondent 1 appeared to have title over the property
and acted as the promoter of the project “Western Weaves.” Clause 1 of the
MoU states that Respondent 1 agreed to sell and transfer the commercial
space to the complainant, for which Respondent 1 received Rs. 38,00,000/from the complainant. The MoU further assured the complainant that all
construction permissions would be obtained by Respondent 1. Selling the
commercial space without obtaining legal title, sanctioned plans from a
competent authority, and without RERA registration constitutes a gross
violation by Respondent 1. Despite having no legal hierarchy towards the
scheduled land of the project, Respondent 1 marketed the project and sold the
commercial space as a pre-launch offer, violating Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act.
18.

As per the ESCI report, the Authority observes that there is currently no

project named “Western Weaves” on the scheduled property but a project
name Waves by M/s Ankuta West Waves which has been on halt due to
ongoing litigation. Respondents 2-5 have no projects registered under RERA
on the concerned project land in survey no. 105 at Nanakramguda. In the
MoU dated 12.02.2021, Respondent 1 assumed sole responsibility for
collecting the amount and handing over possession to the complainant. The
complainant also submitted that he had only contacted Respondent 1 and
was unaware of the legal title until revealed by the ESCI report. Hence, the
Authority believes that Respondents 2-5 cannot be held liable for the default
made by Respondent 1. They shall only be held liable if a connection was
established in the MoU or inspection report, which was not the case.
Additionally, Respondent 1 failed to disclose any such information and
accepted their default, expressing willingness to repay the amount.

10 of 14

20. Therefore, the Authority concludes that only Respondent 1 is liable for the
violations under this Act. Respondents 2-5 are not concerned with the MoU
entered between the complainant and Respondent 1 and thus cannot be held
liable for the violations under this Act.
21.

Point b: The complainant has sought a refund of Rs. 80,00,000/- from

Respondent 1. The Authority observes that the complainant has paid Rs.
38,00,000/-

for

the

concerned

commercial

space.

According

to

the

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the complainant and
Respondent 1, the complainant paid a total sale consideration of Rs.
38,00,000/-. Respondent 1 assured that the project would be handed over by
December 2023 but failed to do so due to the non-continuation of the project.
During the hearing, Respondent 1 admitted that the default occurred due to
legal issues and agreed to refund the entire amount. Both parties requested
and agreed to the refund, resolving this point.
22.

However, the complainant has requested Rs. 80,00,000/-, suggesting

that this amount includes interest or compensation as calculated by the
complainant. While the complainant is entitled to a refund of the amount
paid, as Respondent 1 neither denied nor disputed this relief, the Authority
notes that the complainant has not provided evidence to justify the specific
amount of Rs. 80,00,000/-. The Authority must act in accordance with the
RE(R&D) Act, not based on personal calculations of the complainant. The
sub-points to be considered are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to interest under Section 18 of
the RE(R&D) Act?
23.

Attention is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil Appeal Diary No.
9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others, wherein
it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment by the
date specified in the agreement, the promoter would be liable, on
11 of 14

demand, to return the amount received in respect of that
apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project.
Such a right of the allottee is 'without prejudice to any other
remedy available to him'. This right is unqualified, and if availed,
the deposited money must be refunded with interest as prescribed.
The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates that if the allottee does
not intend to withdraw from the project, they are entitled to
interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over.
The allottee may proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso
thereto."
24.

The RERA Act thus provides a remedy to an allottee who wishes to

withdraw from the project or if the promoter is unable to handover the
possession of allotted unit/plot as the case maybe. Therefore, as per Section
18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is liable to return the amount received
along with interest and compensation if the promoter fails to complete or
deliver possession of the apartment as per the sale agreement.
25.

Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Private
Limited vs. State of UP & Others, it was held:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the
promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot, or building in terms of the agreement for sale.
The allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to seek a
refund of the amount with interest as prescribed."
26.

The provision for interest for delayed possession or similar reasons

applies when the promoter fails to complete the project and the allottee
wishes to withdraw from the project. The allottee is entitled to interest to
safeguard their interests if the promoter fails to perform their obligations and
is unable to hand over possession. In this case, Respondent 1 kept the
complainant on hold for 2.5 years, making false promises about registering
the concerned commercial space in the complainant's name. After the

12 of 14

complaint was filed before this Authority, Respondent 1 revealed that they
failed to acquire the project, thus preventing registration from taking place.
The Authority believes that the complainant, having paid a significant amount
of money in the hope of acquiring a commercial space, has been wronged due
to the complete failure of Respondent 1 to execute the project despite
collecting the full amount. It is unjust for the complainant not to receive
interest on the amount paid. Furthermore, Respondent 1 has only provided
vague replies during hearings and failed to submit a written reply despite
explicit directions. Additionally, Respondent 1 has consistently violated the
RE(R&D) Act by deceiving the public in various other projects, demonstrating
malafide intentions.
27.

Therefore, in the interest of the allottee, the Authority believes that the

complainant is entitled to interest. Under Sections 37 and 38 of the RE(R&D)
Act, the Authority is of the opinion that Respondent 1 should pay interest as
per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, which stipulates the Marginal Cost of
Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% interest. The current MCLR of the State Bank is
8.65% plus 2%.
28.

Respondent 1 is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 38, 00,000/-

along with interest of 10.65% per annum from the due date of registration i.e
01.01.2022 until the date of actual realization, within 90 days from the date
of this order.
Directions of the Authority:
26.

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the complaint numbered 756 of
2023 is hereby allowed. In light of the findings of the Authority as recorded
above, the following directions are issued under Section 37 of the RE(R&D)
Act to ensure compliance with the obligations imposed upon the promoter as
per the functions entrusted to the Authority under Section 34(f) of the
RE(R&D) Act:
I.

The Respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the
complainant for the concerned commercial space in the project
13 of 14

"Western Weaves" as mentioned above, along with interest of 10.65%
per annum from the due date of January 1, 2022.
II.

The refund of the entire amount and interest accrued from the due date
mentioned by the Authority, i.e., January 1, 2022, until the date of the
order by the Authority, shall be paid by the Respondent to the allottee
within a period of 90 days from the date of this Order.

III.

For contravening Section 3 of the Act, this Authority, exercising its
powers under Section 59 of the Act, imposes a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/.
This penalty is imposed for marketing/selling villas of the Project
without registering the project before this Authority. The amount is
payable in favor of TGRERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online
payment to A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code:
HDFC0007036, within 30 days of receipt of this Order by the
Respondents/Promoter.

27.

In light of the above findings and directions, the present complaint

stands disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs. The parties are
hereby informed that failure to comply with this Order shall attract Section 63
of the Act.
28.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

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

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

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

14 of 14