mumbai maharashtra real estate regulatory authority maharera directed that a real estate fundan investor in a large project at ghatkoparis also its promoter and its name be added to the project registration webpage within 30 daysmaharera said the shareholder agreement affords the investor conclusive opportunity to stall project completion or set tone and direction of the project making it fall in the definition of promoter under the actthe agreement between the developer and investor in the ghatkopar project puts the investor in a position where it can cause to construct the project enabling the authority to fasten the responsibility including obligations and liabilities of being a promotor on it held maharera bench of chairperson ajoy mehta and member dr vijay satbir singhthe maharera directed that the investor iirf india realty viii ltd is also a promoter investorbut cautioned against it being a precedent saying this order cannot be and should not be used to force every investor into the shoes of the promoterreal estate regulation and development act rera of 2017 defines a promotor of a project as one who causes it to be constructedthe essence of the dispute before the rera authority was whether an investor or financier would be termed a promoter as wellin april 2022 rare township pvt ltd the project developer complained to maharera that iirf india as the investor was delaying the project by not allowing it to raise funds and hence be declared a promoter tooparimal shroff counsel for the executing developer rare townshipa conglomerate of four builderssaid its board was unable to raise funds to complete the project since veto power in the agreement was used by the investor to deny consent and thus the investor stepped into the promotors shoes under the actnaushad engineer counsel for the investor iirf said by no stretch of the imagination could the financier be termed a promoter or developer of the project as it was not constructing it but had merely invested for returns on its investment he said its claim for money due since 2018 is pending before an arbitral panel he argued the veto rights were to protect his clients interest and form part of most such agreements which cannot cloak the investor as a promoterthe authority said the aim of act is to protect home buyers and the real estate sector was a difficult terrain for the consumer to negotiate prior to the advent of rera the consumers must know the entity from whom the remedy will flow said the maharera in its order adding it has no mandate to apportion the liability on promoters however the order also clarified that an investor has every right to protect his interest but at the same time the wealth of home buyers cannot be eroded and their interests cannot be jeopardized as wellthe maharera said it heard the matter as a division bench since it raised a complex larger issue of riling of investors in real estate projectsmaharera said its role is to protect consumers