The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dismissed a complaint filed by two homebuyers against M3M India Limited over units booked in M3M Woodshire, Sector 107, Gurugram, ruling that the buyers could not pursue the same relief simultaneously before RERA and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 12 March held that a party cannot pursue parallel remedies before different forums on the same cause of action, with a Bench comprising Member Phool Singh Saini dismissing a complaint filed by two homebuyers against M3M India Limited, observing that they were members of an association that had already filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking similar relief for the same allotment.
The dispute traces back to 2013, when two homebuyers purchased apartments in the project. Two homebuyers purchased residential apartments in the project M3M Woodshire located at Dwarka Expressway, Sector 107, Gurugram, Haryana, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1.12 crore and Rs. 72.97 lakh respectively, paying amounts of Rs. 18.84 lakh and Rs. 27.25 lakh to the builder, with Builder-Buyer Agreements executed on 1 May 2013 and 8 August 2013 providing possession due dates of 1 November 2017 and 8 February 2017 respectively. The situation took a turn when the builder terminated the allotments through letters dated 9 July 2014 and 13 May 2014, and possession of the apartments was never offered. Aggrieved by this, the homebuyers filed the complaint before the Authority seeking setting aside of the termination letters, refund of amounts paid along with interest, and litigation costs.
M3M's defence rested on a maintainability argument. The Authority considered the builder's contention that the complaint was not maintainable since the homebuyers were members of the Seven Springwood Welfare Association, which had already filed a complaint against M3M India Limited before the NCDRC for the same allotments. That association matter remains active — the case, Seven Springwood Welfare Association vs. M3M India Limited, is pending before the NCDRC and listed for final hearing on 9 March 2026. The individual complainants tried to distinguish their case, arguing that the NCDRC case was filed by the Association, whereas the present complaint was filed by them individually.
The Authority was not persuaded by this distinction. After examining the records, it noted that the relief sought in the present complaint was identical to that claimed before the NCDRC, and held that once a matter on the same cause of action is pending before a competent forum, filing another complaint for the same relief is impermissible. This forum-shopping bar is a well-established legal principle: Where two remedies are available for the same relief, the party to whom such remedies are available has the option to select either of them but it cannot exercise both options simultaneously.
This is not an isolated instance of Haryana RERA scrutinising M3M-related complaints on technical or procedural grounds. In a separate case decided around the same period, involving units at M3M Crown Phase-I, the Authority took a different but equally instructive approach. The Authority dismissed a complaint filed by two homebuyers against M3M India, holding that they had no right to seek an allotment letter or execution of the builder-buyer agreement since the booking never matured into a confirmed allotment, with the homebuyers found not to have complied with the required payment schedule. Yet the Authority balanced this against the builder's conduct: it observed that the cancellation had not caused any actual loss to the builder and therefore directed it to refund the full booking amount of Rs 16 lakhs to homebuyers within 90 days. Read together, both rulings show Haryana RERA applying strict procedural scrutiny — checking whether an allotment was truly confirmed, and whether a complainant has already sought the same relief elsewhere — while still protecting buyers from being left worse off financially.
For current and prospective owners at M3M Woodshire, the practical takeaway is procedural, not about construction quality or possession status. The project itself is a completed, ready-to-move development spread over roughly 18.88 acres in Sector 107 along Dwarka Expressway. This particular RERA order does not concern construction delays at the live project today; it addresses a legacy dispute from original 2013-era bookings where allotments were later terminated by the builder before possession was ever due. Homebuyers with pending or contemplated disputes against any developer should note the core lesson from this order: choose one forum — RERA or NCDRC — and pursue it to conclusion rather than filing overlapping complaints, since Indian tribunals will dismiss a matter the moment they find an identical claim already pending elsewhere.
Buyers evaluating any M3M project, or those already invested in one facing a dispute, should keep documentation of every payment receipt, BBA, and possession-related communication in order. Given RERA's insistence on demonstrable financial pre-conditions being met before an allotment is treated as confirmed, evidentiary clarity often decides these cases as much as the underlying grievance itself.
