RERA Court proceeds with the case and directs Godrej to file its reply affidavit forthwith.
The complaint, filed by the prospective buyer, seeks cancellation of the RERA registration of Godrej’s project and further seeks directions for registration of an FIR against Godrej Properties and DSK Legal for cheating RERA and prospective purchasers by suppressing material facts. The complainant alleges that, as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the rights claimed by Godrej in the property had come to an end from 12.03.2026 and the rights of East & West Developers stood restored, yet the same was concealed by Godrej from the Authority and homebuyers.
Bombay High Court Record and Documentary Evidence Reveal Pattern of False, Frivolous and Fabricated Claims, Forgery and Fraud by Godrej. —
Bombay High Court has earlier ordered Criminal Prosecution Against Godrej & Boyce for Committing Forgery, Giving False Evidence, and playing fraud upon the High Court to Evade Government Revenue Running into Crores of Rupees. [(Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 Cri. L.J. 3752)]
Directions issued to the Registrar of the High Court to file the complaint as the complainant. The High Court observed in strong and unequivocal terms in its judgment that:- If the Court fails to order criminal prosecution against the persons responsible for such fraudulent acts committed by a corporate entity and allows them to go scot-free, future generations will never forgive the judiciary.
The complaint filed by Shri Mursalin Sheikh before MahaRERA seeking cancellation of the RERA registration of Godrej, and directions for criminal action/FIR against Godrej Properties, DSK Legal and others, came up before the RERA Court today.
During today’s hearing, Godrej was willing for sending the case for mediation; however, Adv. Ayush Tiwari appearing for Shri Mursalin Sheikh, categorically and unequivocally refused to submit to any such process, asserting that the present complaint is not a matter of private dispute but one involving grave issues of larger public interest as Godrej cheated many purchasers and still cheating the prospective purchasers by portraying that, they have absolute right. The reliefs sought pertain to cancellation of the project registration and initiation of criminal action against Godrej Properties, DSK Legal and others for alleged suppression of material facts, misrepresentation and deception before RERA as well as unsuspecting purchasers, and therefore cannot be diluted or compromised through mediation.
The RERA Court, upon considering the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the reliefs sought, declined to refer the matter to mediation. The Court further directed Godrej to file its reply affidavit forthwith and ordered that the matter shall proceed strictly on merits before the RERA Court in accordance with law and further directed that the matter be listed in accordance with the seniority of the case.
The complaint proceeds on the serious allegation that Godrej and others continued to represent the project as marketable and legally clear despite the fact that, according to the complainant, the legal foundation of Godrej’s rights had been shaken by the Bombay High Court’s order dated 12.03.2026, whereby the position of East & West Developers/RNA was restored to the position prevailing prior to the order dated 23.01.2020. Hence, once the earlier legal basis in favour of Godrej stood displaced, all subsequent permissions, approvals, benefits, and representations flowing therefrom became legally vulnerable and could not have been projected before homebuyers as if no material dispute existed.
The controversy assumes greater significance because the Municipal Corporation’s permission dated 05.11.2020 was not an unconditional permission in favour of Godrej. It was expressly subject to the final outcome of proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court, and Godrej was bound by the orders passed therein. Therefore, if the High Court ultimately restored the earlier position in favour of East & West Developers, Godrej cannot now seek equity on the ground of investments, construction progress, permissions, or purchaser interest, particularly when such permissions were conditional from the very beginning.
This position finds strong support from the recent Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jhalak Constructions & Ors. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors., 2026:BHC-AS:20511-DB, decided on 29.04.2026, where the Court reiterated that permissions obtained by fraud, suppression, incorrect documents, concealment or misrepresentation are vitiated and non-est in law. The Court categorically held that a party who misleads the authority cannot take advantage of its own wrong, and that the fact that 80% construction has been completed or that crores of rupees have been invested cannot be a ground to regularise illegality.
The Division Bench further relied upon the principle that fraud vitiates all orders and observed that a developer who procures permissions by misleading the authority is not entitled to sympathy or leniency. The Court emphasised that investment by the developer or flat purchasers cannot be used as a shield to defend illegal or irregular permissions. This principle is directly relevant to the Godrej Horizon controversy, where the core allegation is that material pending litigation, conditional permissions, competing rights, and the legal effect of the High Court proceedings were not properly disclosed before MahaRERA and purchasers.
The Bombay High Court in Jhalak Constructions also relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, wherein the Supreme Court held that illegal constructions and deviations cannot be encouraged, and that courts must deal with such violations with “iron hands”. The Supreme Court further held that delay, administrative failure, cost of construction, investment, or negligence of authorities cannot be used as a defence to protect illegal or unauthorised constructions.
Similarly, reliance was placed on Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995, where the Supreme Court held that courts must adopt a strict approach in matters involving illegal constructions and must not readily engage in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without lawful permissions. The law cannot come to the rescue of those who flout its rigours, as doing so would create a culture of impunity.
The complaint against Godrej also raises serious questions regarding the role of DSK Legal, which allegedly issued a title certificate/legal title report stating that pending cases had no bearing on the project and that the project was free from encumbrances. A legal notice dated 20.05.2026 was reportedly issued to DSK Legal by Adv. Deepashree Raorane on behalf of East & West Developers, calling upon the firm to withdraw the title report on the ground that it contained false, incomplete, or misleading representations regarding pending litigation, conditional permissions, competing rights, and the legal effect of judicial proceedings on the project.
In this context, reliance is also placed on the Bombay High Court judgment in Ramniklal v. Varsha, 1991 SCC OnLine Bom 333, where the Court laid down important principles concerning liability of advocates issuing faulty title certificates. As per the said judgment, an advocate or law firm issuing a false, negligent, or misleading title certificate may be held liable to compensate purchasers and may also face disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council for professional misconduct. Depending upon the gravity of misconduct, such disciplinary action may extend to suspension or cancellation of the advocate’s right to practise.
The present proceedings before MahaRERA, therefore, are not merely about a private contractual dispute between a developer and a purchaser. They raise larger issues of developer accountability, truthfulness of RERA disclosures, professional responsibility of law firms issuing title certificates, duties of municipal authorities, protection of innocent homebuyers, and consequences of permissions allegedly obtained or continued through suppression of material facts.
The complainant’s case is that once the High Court restored the position of East & West Developers/RNA, Godrej could not continue to project the project as legally unaffected or free from material encumbrances. The allegation is that misleading communications were issued to purchasers even after the order dated 12.03.2026, thereby creating a false sense of legal certainty and exposing purchasers to serious future litigation and financial risk.
With MahaRERA now directing Godrej to file its reply affidavit forthwith and with the complainant refusing mediation on the ground of larger public interest, the matter is expected to proceed on merits. The outcome may have significant consequences for the Godrej Horizon project, its RERA registration, the role of professional title certifiers, and the accountability of developers who allegedly proceed with projects despite serious title disputes and conditional permissions.
