Detailed Report · as of 09/26

Shristi Sea View

Mahim sea-view tower stalled two-thirds up, registration lapsed · RERA P51900002867 (Shristi Sea View / Building A) - LAPSED

MahaRERA P51900002867 (LAPSED) · Mahim, G/North · cessed 33(7) redevelopment

Overall Score4.5/10as of 09/26

The brochure sells a move-in-ready sea-view luxury tower; the record is a stalled, lapsed-registration shell frozen near the 34th floor by an insolvent developer.

Flags
  1. Sale registration lapsed and the developer group is insolvent: the tower is frozen near the 34th floor with no committed completion path.

The physical asset is sound and rescuable, but a lapsed registration, an insolvent developer and a frozen structure mean money paid now buys delivery risk, not a home. The headline is the composite score and the single critical flag.

The five things that decide it
1The registration has lapsed and the developer's group is insolvent; the tower is frozen near the 34th floor with no committed completion path.
2The sea view is real - the upper floors genuinely open west to Mahim Bay and the Arabian Sea.
3Money paid goes to a distressed developer; the contractual possession date is about six years overdue and existing buyers are already in disputes.
4A rescuable asset - fully sanctioned, clean title, the rehousing obligation discharged since 2010, and about two-thirds of the structure already built.
5Even once finished, car-lift-and-valet-only parking and a thin three-lift core are real shortfalls at a six-crore-plus price.
FVL — Rexray's index · F Fundamentals · V Value · L Livability · each pillar is the average of its scored attributes, scored 0–10: Weak (<4) · Mixed (4–6) · Fair (6–7.5) · Strong (7.5+) · the verdict is set separately, by hard-stop rules · Scoring Methodology →

Fundamentals

3.4/10Weak

Pillar score is the average of the scored attributes below; some attributes are qualitative and carry questions rather than a number.

Clear Title6.0/10
Clean title, but the charge position is unverified

The land was assembled from three older tenanted (cessed) properties, each conveyed to the developer between 2005 and 2009, and a 2017 advocate's opinion certifies clear and marketable title with the redevelopment right held under the cessed-building scheme.

The weakness is what the title work does not cover: the no-encumbrance warranty is tied to that 2017 opinion, which predates the 2018 lender litigation, and there is no independent charge search on file - so whether the part-built tower carries a mortgage is an open question a buyer must close before relying on the clean-title statement.

The rehousing obligation that usually complicates a cessed redevelopment is already discharged here - the former-tenant building was completed and occupied in 2010.
Understand “Clear Title” on the X-Ray page ↗
Delivery2.0/10
Frozen near the 34th floor, registration lapsed, developer insolvent
  • This is the heart of the matter.
  • The tower reached roughly the 34th of 46 sanctioned floors and then stopped, around 2019-2020.
  • The sale registration has since lapsed, the contractual possession date is about six years past, and the developer's group is in insolvency and lender litigation.
  • The unusual feature is that nothing technical blocks completion - the project is fully sanctioned, the title is clean, the rehousing is done, and two-thirds of the structure stands.
  • It is a good asset stalled by a bad balance sheet, which makes it rescuable through a housing-authority takeover or a replacement developer.
  • But no completion path is committed today, so delivery certainty is currently at its floor.
What to ask the builder
  • Is there any committed plan and date to finish the tower, and who funds it?
Understand “Delivery” on the X-Ray page ↗
Developer Compliance2.5/10
Lapsed registration and non-compliance on record

Regulatory standing is poor: the registration has lapsed, both the original and revised completion dates were missed, non-compliance orders were recorded in 2019 and 2020, and the developer's own on-record appeals contradict the portal's self-declaration of no litigation.

What to ask the builder
  • Will the registration be revived, and under what completion commitment?
Understand “Developer Compliance” on the X-Ray page ↗
Brochure-vs-Reality3.0/10
A move-in luxury lifestyle marketed; a stalled shell delivered
  • The marketing sells a finished lifestyle - an air-conditioned grand lobby, a fifteenth-floor club deck with pool and mini-theatre, a rooftop sky lounge, concierge service and a sea view 'from all apartments'.
  • The reality is a stalled, lapsed-registration shell with none of that amenity programme built and the sea view genuine only higher up.

To its credit the locality is stated honestly - it is marketed as Mahim, which is where it is, with no address upgrade.

Understand “Brochure-vs-Reality” on the X-Ray page ↗

Value

6.9/10Fair

Pillar score is the average of the scored attributes below; some attributes are qualitative and carry questions rather than a number.

View7.0/10
A real sea view on the upper floors

The west and south-west aspect genuinely opens to Mahim Bay and the Arabian Sea, so the sea view the project's name promises is real for the upper floors - not a distant sliver dressed up as a sea view.

  • The single qualifier is the word 'all': lower and mid floors are more likely screened by the surrounding Mahim mid-rise, so the sea view is a genuine upper-floor premium rather than a whole-building guarantee.
  • Ask which floor it starts on.
Today: Real open sea view to the west from the upper floors; lower floors partly screened by surrounding mid-rise.By 2032: Mahim is low-to-mid-rise with no supertall pipeline surfaced nearby, so the upper-floor sea aspect is unlikely to be walled by a future tower.
Shristi Sea View — the plot and what surrounds it
Rexray View Map: Shristi Sea View and its surrounding development
Understand “View” on the X-Ray page ↗
Layout & Living8.0/10
An efficient, low-density plate with sea-facing rooms
  • The apartment is genuinely well-drawn: a carpet efficiency of about 88 percent, only two homes per floor, sea-facing living rooms and bedrooms, and private decks.
  • That is comfortably above the Mahim set average and one of the property's real strengths.

The only open item is a geometry check on the sanctioned drawing; the clean marketing floor plate is a reliable stand-in in the meantime.

What to ask the builder
  • The west-face glass specification — brand, glazing thickness, and the heat-trapping (SHGC / U-value) number.
Understand “Layout & Living” on the X-Ray page ↗
Non-RERA Area7.5/10
No exclusive-common grab found; decks to verify

Nothing points to the 'exclusive-use' common-area problem that inflates apparent carpet on some luxury plates, and the two-homes-per-floor layout is structurally low-risk for the private-lobby version of it.

The one thing to confirm is the marketed 'green decks extending from the apartment' - whether that area is owned deck/carpet you buy, or enclosed exclusive-use space you would not, which the sale-agreement schedules will settle.

Understand “Non-RERA Area” on the X-Ray page ↗
Pricing5.0/10
Full-market price for a distressed, unfinished asset

The registered agreement value is about six and a quarter crore for the reference apartment, and current asking prices sit near it. The per-foot rate is not out of line for Mahim luxury.

  • The problem is not the rate but the value: paying close to a delivered-building price for a stalled, incomplete, lapsed-registration tower is poor value.
  • It is only fair at a clear discount to a completed comparable, priced for the risk that it may take years - and a resolution - to finish.
What to ask the builder
  • What is the all-in cost — including stamp duty, registration and goods-and-services tax (GST)?
  • What is the rate on the area I actually own (carpet plus deck) versus the marketed area?
  • What have recent apartments in this building / micro-market actually registered at?
Understand “Pricing” on the X-Ray page ↗

Livability

5.4/10Mixed

Pillar score is the average of the scored attributes below; some attributes are qualitative and carry questions rather than a number.

Compound Density5.0/10
A shared plot: rehab cluster plus a retail market

The compact plot carries more than the sale tower: a completed rehousing cluster of about ninety-eight middle-class former-tenant homes and a small ground-plus-three retail market share the compound with the forty-nine luxury apartments - roughly a two-to-one rehab-to-sale mix.

The rehab is middle-class and already built and occupied since 2010 - a lighter and more settled neighbour than active slum rehousing - but the shared compound and the retail footfall are real intra-plot density beside a tower sold as exclusive.

Understand “Compound Density” on the X-Ray page ↗
Neighbourhood4.0/10
Dense, mixed, working Mahim surroundings
  • The setting is a busy, older, mixed Mahim streetscape - a bazaar road, a temple and a market close on the boundaries, with tight mid-rise all around.
  • Characterful and central rather than premium-quiet or insulated.
Understand “Neighbourhood” on the X-Ray page ↗
Peak-Hour Connectivity6.5/10
About 16 minutes to the Sea Link

Roughly sixteen minutes to the nearest coastal-road and Sea Link entry - decent connectivity for an inland island-city plot, helped by Mahim's closeness to the Bandra-Worli Sea Link on the south-west.

Fixable? Builders like to sell connectivity as kilometres from a landmark — but the real test is time, not distance: how long you would actually be stuck, at peak hour, just getting to a fast arterial like a Sea Link or Coastal Road on-ramp. The access route and the on-ramp are municipal and outside the developer's control, so there is no fix to offer — only an honest read of the peak-hour reality today and the area's trajectory by 2032, once the surrounding pipeline has built out.
Understand “Peak-Hour Connectivity” on the X-Ray page ↗
Kitchen Ventilation9.0/10
Kitchens vent to the outside

The kitchens sit against a service and utility edge with an external air path, so the ventilation test reads as a pass - subject to a confirmation on the sanctioned drawing.

Understand “Kitchen Ventilation” on the X-Ray page ↗
Lift Wait6.0/10
A thin three-lift core for the height

Three lifts - one of them a fire lift that can double as a passenger car - serve two apartments a floor across a roughly 140-metre tower. That is thin for the height.

  • The lift-wait model lands between Grade B and Grade C across the plausible speed range, with the cautious read a Grade C.
  • At a six-crore-plus price a Grade-C morning wait is a real, if not disqualifying, shortfall - confirm the lift speed and count from the lift schedule.
Expect a Grade B-to-C morning-peak wait; the conservative read is Grade C on three effective lifts.
Understand “Lift Wait” on the X-Ray page ↗
Water Adequacyqualitative
Water sanction not yet reconciled

The municipal water and hydraulic-No-Objection Certificate unit count could not be reconciled against the sale-agreement unit count from the approval papers available, so water adequacy is carried as a buyer-question rather than scored.

What to ask the builder
  • What is the sanctioned water supply and tank provision against the unit count?
Understand “Water Adequacy” on the X-Ray page ↗
Parking3.0/10
Car-lift and valet only - you never drive to your bay

Parking is reached by car lift to stacked podium decks, with no drivable ramp to the space - lift-dependent and valet-oriented (the brochure markets it as 'high-speed car elevators' and 'exclusive valet parking').

The bay count is ample for the forty-nine homes and the retrieval model shows no morning queue, so the low mark is the mechanism itself: never driving to your own space is a structural drawback at this price and a question mark for a large vehicle.

What to ask the builder
  • Is it valet-mandatory, does a bay take an SUV, and is a private-bay EV charger allowed?
Understand “Parking” on the X-Ray page ↗
Build Planning & Qualitynot yet scored
A checklist to verify with the builder — Rexray will score this attribute as the field database grows.

Rexray's database will, over time, be enriched with the attention to detail and quality ethos of each builder. For now, below is the checklist you should verify with the builder before you decide.

What to ask the builder
  • Who's the architect, and what comparable have they delivered?
  • Do the lobbies need lights during the day?
  • Gym/pool/lobby sized for how many residents? (gym sqft / residents)
  • Does this unit's layout meet your Vastu requirements (entry, kitchen, master)?
  • Can a fire tender or an ambulance reach the lobby?
  • Who is actually building it?
  • Mivan or conventional — and how are the tie-holes grouted and cracks controlled?
  • What's the realistic floor-cycle, and how does the monsoon factor in?
  • Which steel/cement? Facade glazing spec? MEP contractor? STP/solar?
  • Which marble/fittings exactly? Which window system? VRV brand?
  • Deck/bathroom waterproofing system? How's the facade sealed into the structure?
  • Gypsum or block internal walls — and are the party walls insulated?
  • Does the back-up generator power my whole flat, or only the common areas?
  • Is the parking solo, tandem, or a mechanical stack — and how wide are the bays?
Understand “Build Planning & Quality” on the X-Ray page ↗
Community4.0/10
An uncertain community under a distressed project

A forty-nine-family boutique tower would usually read as a homogeneous high-end community, but it sits on a shared rehab-and-retail plot in dense Mahim and carries the overhang of a distressed, litigated project - so the eventual resident mix is genuinely indeterminate until the project is resolved.

What to ask the builder
  • What is the ticket-size range in the building — the gap between the cheapest and the most expensive home?
  • Is the building vegetarian-only, or skewed to a single community?
  • Is it owner-occupied, or investor- and tenant-heavy?
  • What is the pet policy?
Understand “Community” on the X-Ray page ↗

Findings register

13 findings · severity-ranked

Every marketed claim set against the documented fact, sourced. Critical and high first.

HIGH
Stalled tower with a LAPSED RERA registration
Marketed[MKT] Actively marketed 3/4BHK 'ready-to-move' luxury tower
Documented[REG]/[GOV]/[REXRAY-FIELD] RERA P51900002867 LAPSED; the agreement possession 31/12/2020 and RERA revised 31/12/2023 both missed. Field: ~15/16 podium + ~18 habitable floors built (~F33-34 of 46), work stalled ~2019-2020. Commencement Certificate crept to F39 (2022, plan extension). Permission origin 2000.
HIGH
Promoter-group financial distress + lender litigation
Marketed[MKT] Established 'Shristi' developer
Documented[REG]/[SEC] Four MahaRERA appeals (2018) are Avarsekar Realty vs the lender L&T Financial Consultants; the Shristi/Bengal Shristi group (Kolkata) is the SREI-group real-estate arm associated with NCLT insolvency + lender disputes.
HIGH
Rescuable stall - resolution runs through MHADA 91A / MahaRERA / new developer
Marketedn/a
Documented[GOV] As a cessed 33(7) MBRRB-No-Objection Certificate scheme stalled >3 years with the old building demolished, the project is a candidate for MHADA/MBRRB Section 91A acquisition-and-completion; the lapsed MahaRERA registration can be revived with Section 7/8 relief by an allottees' association; a replacement developer can complete the balance work.
MED-HIGH
the agreement possession 31/12/2020 breached - delay interest accruing since
Marketed[MKT] Possession implied on sale
Documented[REG] the agreement clause 20.1: possession 'on or before 31st December 2020'. Clause 20.2: for a buyer who does not withdraw, the promoter owes interest at SBI highest MCLR + 2% for every month of delay; a withdrawing buyer gets a refund with the same interest. Breached by ~6 years.
MEDIUM
Encumbrance position contradicted by lender litigation (C10/C05)
Marketedn/a
Documented[REG] Portal 'Financial Encumbrance: No' and the 2017 title 'free from encumbrances' - yet the developer is in 2018 appellate litigation with L&T Financial Consultants; no CERSAI charge search and no the agreement lender clause on file (the title opinion pre-dates the dispute).
MEDIUM
Possibly under-lifted core (EWT B/C)
Marketed[MKT] Luxury tower
Documented[GOV] EWT engine returns Grade B with 4 lifts but slips to Grade C (interval to ~56s) with 3 lifts, over ~24 habitable floors / ~2.5 units-per-floor. Lift count not confirmable off the sanctioned plate.
MEDIUM
'Sea view from all apartments' needs floor-banding (OOC)
Marketed[MKT] 'Fabulous Sea view from ALL apartments', '360 degree view', '500 ft altitude'
Documented[REXRAY] Out-of-corridor Mahim; the sea is ~0.6-1.0 km W/SW across dense low/mid-rise Mahim. Upper floors likely open a W/SW sea arc; lower/mid floors are likely screened by intervening mid-rise. Not verifiable blind.
MEDIUM
Homebuyer complaint + appeal (Paranjpe, 2020)
Marketed[MKT] Clear title / no litigation (portal self-declares 'No')
Documented[REG] Portal self-declares no litigation, but the appellate table shows Avarsekar Realty vs Ashok & Anita Paranjpe (allottees), appeal AT006...52775/20 filed 07/11/2020 ('Bench Allocated'), on complaint CC006...078414 (non-compliance 29/10/2020).
MEDIUM
the agreement 'no encumbrance / no litigation' representation is stale
Marketed[REG] the agreement clause 10.1: 'no encumbrances / no litigations except those disclosed in the title report'
Documented[REG] The the agreement pins its no-encumbrance/no-litigation warranty to the 2017 title report - which pre-dates the 2018 L&T Financial appeals and the 2020 Paranjpe matter. So the warranty does not capture the very disputes that then froze the project.
LOW-MED
Car-lift-dependent parking (tier E) with valet
Marketed[MKT] 'High speed car elevators + exclusive valet parking' (sold as a feature)
Documented[GOV] Parking is on multi-level podium decks reached only by car lifts - no drivable ramp to the bay (basement 2/7 + parking sheets 4/7 draw 2 car-lift wells + stairs, no vehicle ramp). Tier E anchor (~2.5-3). Count ample (~121 vs ~118); retrieval queue is fine (Grade A).
LOW-MED
On-plot rehab cluster + retail market share the compound
Marketed[MKT] Standalone luxury tower depiction
Documented[GOV] The ~3337 sqm plot also carries a completed 98-tenement rehab cluster (Building B, OC 2010) and a Gr+3 retail market (Wing E) alongside the 49-unit sale tower.
LOW
Actively marketed as available on a lapsed, part-built registration
Marketed[MKT] Broker listings advertise 3BHK 'from ~Rs.6.8 Cr' as available
Documented[REG] The RERA registration is LAPSED and the sale tower has no OC (built to F39/46). Selling on a lapsed registration is itself a compliance concern.
LOW
Poor document legibility across the sanctioned set
Marketedn/a
Documented[REXRAY] The 2014 sanctioned blueprints are legible in structure but marginal in fine print (Form II figures, unit dims); the 125-page registered the agreement is image-only with near-useless OCR; the title scan is noisy. Clean text exists only for the portal export, Commencement Certificate and MoEF.
Five questions to ask before you commit
  1. Is there a committed completion plan - a housing-authority takeover, a replacement developer, or a RERA revival - and a date?
  2. Is the half-built tower mortgaged or charged to any lender (an independent charge search), and what is the status of the lender litigation?
  3. For existing buyers: is the delay compensation the sale agreement provides being pursued, and is there an allottees' association?
  4. Which is the lowest floor with the unobstructed sea view the marketing promises 'from all apartments'?
  5. What is the current corporate/insolvency status of the developer and its parent group, and who would fund and finish the balance work?
Rexray — Real Estate X-Ray. This is a research view built from registered documents, government filings, and Rexray field analysis; it is not legal, financial, or investment advice. Verify every figure against the source documents before you transact.
© 2026 Rexray.AI