Sixteen years after several homebuyers invested crores of rupees in a residential project in Govandi, Mumbai, a special Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) court has directed the police to register FIRs against a builder and its promoters over allegations of undelivered flats and non-refund of money. The court’s intervention has brought renewed attention to the prolonged struggle faced by buyers who claim they have been waiting for either possession of their homes or recovery of their investments.
The court ordered Govandi police to register cases against Mishal Constructions Pvt Ltd and its promoters Ajitkumar Jain and Navinkumar Jain. The allegations relate to flats in the Maitri Vijay Co-operative Housing Society project, where buyers reportedly made substantial payments but were left without possession after construction stalled.
Buyers Claim Crores Paid for Flats
One of the complaints was filed by Chetan and Vaishali Mehta, who said they booked two flats in the project in October 2010. According to their complaint, they paid approximately ₹3 crore after being assured that the apartments would be completed and handed over by 2016.
However, construction reportedly stopped in 2016. The buyers alleged that despite making the required payments, they neither received possession nor obtained a refund from the developer. Their efforts to resolve the matter continued for years, eventually leading them to approach the authorities and the MPID court.
A second complaint was filed by Latha Sidharthan and Kurupath Sidharthan. They alleged that they paid around ₹1.67 crore for another flat in the same project after receiving assurances regarding possession. They too claimed that the project remained incomplete and their investment was not returned.
Together, the two complaints involve approximately ₹4.67 crore.
Police Reports Come Under Court Scrutiny
The complaints had remained pending since 2023. Police had previously conducted preliminary inquiries and subsequently submitted ‘C’ summary reports in the matters. The reports were linked partly to the fact that the homebuyers were also pursuing proceedings before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
The MPID court, however, rejected the argument that the existence of RERA proceedings prevented criminal investigation. The court observed that RERA and criminal law operate in different areas and that approaching a regulatory authority does not automatically prevent a complainant from pursuing criminal remedies where allegations disclose a cognisable offence.
FIRs Ordered Against Builder and Promoters
The court directed Govandi police to register FIRs and conduct investigations into the allegations. The order also criticised the police for failing to register an FIR in the Mehta case, stating that their interpretation of the applicable law was incorrect.
A similar direction was issued in the Sidharthan matter. Police have been asked to investigate the allegations and submit reports to the court within the prescribed period.
The development is significant for the affected buyers because an FIR formally begins a criminal investigation, allowing authorities to examine the financial transactions, agreements, project records and circumstances surrounding the alleged failure to deliver the flats.
Long Wait Highlights Homebuyer Concerns
The case underscores the challenges faced by homebuyers when housing projects remain incomplete for years. Buyers can face significant financial pressure when large amounts remain locked in disputed or unfinished properties while promised possession dates continue to pass.
The MPID court’s order also highlights the distinction between regulatory remedies and criminal proceedings. While RERA can provide a forum for disputes involving delayed possession and other real-estate issues, the court has made clear that allegations potentially involving criminal wrongdoing can be investigated separately.
For the affected families, the latest order marks an important development after years of uncertainty. The investigation will now determine whether the allegations against the builder and promoters are supported by evidence and whether further criminal action is warranted.
