Anu Miglani & Ors. vs NBCC (India) Limited & Ors.

A Complaint dated 03.03.2026 was made by Mr. Anu Manglani, Mrs. Vineeta Manglani and M/s Meena Bazaar through its proprietor, Mr. Anu Manglani (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Complainants’) against NBCC (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBCC’ or ‘Respondent 1’), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoHUA’ or ‘Respondent 2’), M/s Mansan Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent 3’), Manoj Kumar, Managing Director, M/s Mansan Builders Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents 4’), Usha Devi, Director, M/s Mansan Builders Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents 5’), Sunil Kumar Jindal, Director, M/s Mansan Builders Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents 6’ and M/s SVP Builder India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents 7’), requesting this Authority to take on record all amounts paid by them to Respondents 1, 2 and 3 for allotment of 205 units through transfer in project Down Town, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject project’) promoted by Respondents 1 & 2 and declaring them as consequential.

The complaint was taken on record and notices were issued to Respondents 1 to 7 on 11.3.2026.

Replies to the complaint and submissions were filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3.

Adv. Ray Vikram Nath represented Respondents 1 and 2.

Adv. Pulak represented Respondents 3.

Respondents 4 and 7 were found irrelevant and hence no further notice was issued to them or reply insisted.

The arguments were heard on 7.7.2026 and case was reserved for orders on 21.7.2026.

The main submissions made by the Complainants are as follows:

The main submissions made by Respondents 1 & 2 are as follows:

The main submissions made by Respondents 3 are as follows:

The project ‘Down Town, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi’ was registered by this Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RE(RD) Act, 2016’ or ‘the Act’) vide Registration No. DLRERA2022P0011 dated 02.06.2022. The project ‘Down Town, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi’ was registered by this Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RE(RD) Act, 2016’ or ‘the Act’) vide Registration No. DLRERA2022P0011 dated 02.06.2022. The project involved development of ‘Down Town’ as commercial component of the larger project ‘Redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar Residential Colony, New Delhi’. The project received the Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificate (OCC) on 21.08.2024.

Respondents 1 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 30.04.2024 for bulk auction of office and retail units in the subject project.

Respondents 3 were declared successful for allotment of total 598 units, as bulk buyer or allottee.

Respondents 3 issued advertisements in print and other medias for sale of these units.

The Complainants in their complaint have submitted that following payments amounting to Rs. 447,93,69,163/-, have either been made by them or their behalf to Respondents 1, 2 and 3 enclosing proofs for the same.

The Complainants signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 22.5.2025 with Respondents 3. In this MoU, Respondents 3 have admitted that they received Rs.110,60,81,342/- (Rupees One Hundred Sixty Crore Sixty Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Two Only) from the Complainants and Rs. 50,00,00,000/- from Mrs. Chanda Sachdev, Yodhan Sachdev & Paulastya Sachdev on their behalf and did not deposit this amount with NBCC / MoHUA on behalf of the Complainants. The relevant portion of the MoU is reproduced as under

The MoU dated 22.05.2025 is seen sent to NBCC as per email dated 23.05.2025 and legal communication dated 21.07.2025 by the Complainants.

The Complainants signed an ‘Agreement to Sell’ dated 21.7.2025 with Mrs. Chanda Sachdev, Yodhan Sachdev & Paulastya Sachdev for purchase of units.

As per their letter no. NBCC/REDEV/MKTG/2025/371 dated 27.03.2025, NBCC has confirmed receipt of Rs. 134,47,02,645/- as full payment for 59 units on 5^th floor.

As per their email dated 24.4.2025, NBCC is on record that a sum of Rs. 12,37,68,001/- has been received by them towards full payment for five units UG-6, UG-7, UG-8, UG-9 and UG-10.

NBCC as per their written submission has admitted that they have received 60 percent of the payment in respect of 77 units located on fourth floor, sixth floor and upper ground floor. As against the total dues inclusive of interest of Rs. 183,34,87,552.14 they have received a sum of Rs. 115,87,05,580.96 leaving a balance of Rs. 67,47,81,971.18 to be received.

From the above MoU signed between the Complainants and Respondents 3 and placed on record, it can be inferred that the above monies paid by the Complainants to Respondents 3 for purchase of ‘Down Town’ units were used by Respondents 3 for participating in auction for ‘Aspire Golf Homes’ conducted by NBCC and not transferred to NBCC / MoHUA.

The Respondents 3 as per above MOU agreed to adjust the amounts received from the Complainants and others on their behalf against the sums to be received by them (Respondents 3) from NBCC.

From the above and Suo Motu case no. F. RREP/SM-191/RERA/2024 proceedings, we note that the Promoters had not enacted enough safeguards to protect the interest and monies of the third parties like the Complainants. Our observations made in the Suo Motu case no. F. RREP/SM-191/RERA/2024 become relevant here.

As per NBCC’s e-mail dated 11.4.2026, NBCC has acknowledged receipt of payment of Rs. 287,32,87,821/- made by the Complainants and others on their behalf directly to NBCC / MoHUA (in addition to Rs.160,60,81,342/- paid to the Respondents 3).

The details provided by NBCC to the Complainants regarding the units purchased, NBCC cost, amount received from Complainants and others and balance amount has been indicated as below as per attachment of e-mail dated 11.04.2026:

As per their letter no. NBCC/REDEV/MKTG/2025/371 dated 27.03.2025, NBCC has confirmed receipt of Rs. 134,47,02,645/- as full payment for 59 units on 5^th floor. This amount has been shown as Rs. 134,87,32,386.65 in the written submissions made by NBCC. This needs reconciliation.

As per their email dated 24.4.2025, NBCC is on record that a sum of Rs. 12,37,68,001/- has been received by them towards full payment for five units UG-6, UG-7, UG-8, UG-9 and UG-10.

NBCC as per their written submission has also admitted that they have received 60 percent of the payment in respect of 77 units located on fourth floor, sixth floor and upper ground floor. As against the total dues inclusive of interest of Rs. 183,34,87,552.14 they have received a sum of Rs. 115,87,05,580.96 leaving a balance of Rs. 67,47,81,971.18 to be received.

From the above statements it is seen that these figures also require reconciliation -if Rs. 255,48,54,667.00 have been received by NBCC / MoHUA from the Complainants and other persons on their behalf, and Rs. 134,87,32,386.65 has been paid for 59 units on 5^th floor and Rs. 115,87,05,580.9677 units located on fourth floor, sixth floor and upper ground floor, there should be a balance of Rs. 4,74,46,440.35 still remaining with NBCC / MoHUA.

Respondents 3, however, remain liable to pay Rs.160,60,81,342/- to the Complainants and they cannot escape from their liability to remit the said amount to NBCC on behalf of the Complainants or get the amount to be received by them adjusted against the sums to be paid as agreed in the MoU.

The issues which need to be decided in this case are:

Respondents 1 & 2 have contended that no violation of the Act has been pleaded. Respondents 3 have contended that the complaint is not maintainable as it is a commercial / civil matter. Respondents have further contended that the Complainants ought to be relegated to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, where a similar matter is pending.

The Preamble to the RE(RD) Act, 2016 reads:

Protection of the consumers in the real estate sector, and speedy redressal of their grievances, is thus the very object for which this Authority exists.

Section 2 (zn) of the Act defines "real estate project" as follows:

Down Town, Sarojini Nagar, is such a project, a building consisting of apartments developed for the purpose of selling the same and stands registered with this Authority vide Registration No. DLRERA2022P0011 on 02.06.2022. The complaint concerns the collection and non-accounting of sale consideration paid for units in this very registered project. Thus, the dispute is a real estate dispute within the meaning of the Act, and does not lose that character merely because Respondents 1 choose to describe it as "commercial."

Further, Section 2(d) defines "allottee" as follows:

The Complainants acquired their 205 units through purchase/transfer from Respondents 3, itself the bulk allottee of 598 units under the NIT dated 30.04.2024. This is squarely "the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise." Thus, the Complainants are allottees under Section 2(d), described as sub-allottees to distinguish them from Respondents 3, the original bulk allottee and are entitled to the same statutory protection as any other allottee.

The Explanation to Section 2(zk) provides:

Respondents 1 & 2 constructed and developed Down Town; then Respondents 3 sold the units to the Complainants, doing so through the very bulk-auction and re-sale route Respondents 3 stand akin to a promoter qua the Complainants, and cannot treat the sums it collected from them as a matter of private arrangement outside the reach of the Act.

Section 79 provides:

Having found that this is a real estate dispute under a registered project, that the Complainants are allottees, and that Respondents 3 stand akin to a promoter , this is a matter this Authority is empowered to determine.

Further, Respondents 1 & 2 submitted that mediation proceedings, undertaken pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, are pending, and that this bars the present Complaint.

Mediation is voluntary and non-adjudicatory; it binds no one unless and until it culminates in an executed settlement. Section 88 of the Act provides:

Just as this Authority's jurisdiction does not derogate from a party's right to mediate elsewhere, the pendency of voluntary mediation does not derogate or restrain this Authority from performing own statutory functions.

The pendency of mediation proceedings is not a bar to the present complaint, and Respondent 2 & 3's objection is thus rejected.

Having decided that the Complainants are sub- allottees and have similar protection under the Act, it becomes duty of this Authority to protect their interests, particularly when the Promoters have failed to do so, our order in Suo- Motu Case F. RREP/SM191/RERA/2024 Dated 10.8.2026 refers.

The only relief the Complainants are seeking is that the payments made by them should be taken on record and declared consequential.

Since, neither Respondents 1 nor Respondents 2 & 3 have disputed these payments, in order to protect the interests of the Complainants as sub-allottees of the units in project, Down Town, Sarojini Nagar, we feel it appropriate to take them on record.

In view of the above, we order as follows:

While passing this order we re-iterate our findings in Suo-Motu Case No. F.RREP/SM191/RERA/2024 Dated 10.8.2026. Those findings shall form part of this order also.

The Complaint is disposed as above.

No orders to cost.