Piramal Realtys handling of the Aranya project, especially with NRI buyers like Zainab and Hozefa Safdari, reveals a troubling pattern: opaque disclosures, shifting project realities, selective communication, and a stark imbalance of power between buyer and developer.
The Safdaris were sold a high-end, three-tower luxury enclave in South Mumbai for ₹;8.5 crore marketed as exclusive, spacious, and premium. Yet over the years, the project quietly morphed into something fundamentally different. A fourth tower suddenly appeared, expanding the development to over 1, 500 units, drastically increasing density and diluting the premium experience NRIs had paid for. Instead of acknowledging this as a major deviation, the developer simply renamed the new tower as Wing B of an existing one an apparent maneuver to sidestep obligations and scrutiny associated with declaring a genuinely new tower in a luxury project.
The core allegation is simple and serious: Piramal Realty sold one project and delivered another.
When the buyers raised concerns, the company leaned on fine print in the Agreement for Sale clauses allowing future phases and expansions to justify a structural change no ordinary homebuyer could have reasonably anticipated. Legally defensible or not, this tactic exposes a deeper ethical failing: contractual loopholes were wielded to override legitimate buyer expectations rather than protect them.
The Safdaris struggle to renegotiate a sudden ₹;4-crore demand during COVID highlights the CRMs contradictory behaviour warm assurances on calls, cold pressure in emails. For months, verbal placations masked formal coercion. This was not customer care; it was procedural pressure dressed as empathy.
Then came the cease-and-desist notice. Instead of addressing the substance of the grievances broken promises, altered project density, inconsistent information Piramal Realty responded with legal aggression, branding the Safdaris video as malicious and coercive. It is a familiar corporate tactic: weaponize defamation rhetoric to silence dissatisfied customers, hoping the threat of litigation will bury the complaint rather than resolve it.
The developers claim that everything was disclosed in the AFS misses the point. Ethical real estate demands more than legal compliance; it demands informed consent, transparency, and good-faith communication all absent here.
At its heart, the Aranya dispute is not just about one couple versus one builder. It raises broader questions about how large developers treat NRI buyers:
Are key changes masked behind technical nomenclature?
Are high-density expansions slipped in as wings to avoid accountability?
Are luxury buyers sold exclusivity that evaporates after bookings?
Is CRM used to manage expectations rather than provide clarity?
The Safdaris story suggests that Piramal Realtys glossy branding and marketing promises vanish the moment a buyer pushes back replaced by contract clauses, technicalities, and legal notices.
This case is a stark warning for homebuyers, particularly NRIs: when a developer can expand a luxury enclave into a 1, 500-unit complex, rename a new tower to bypass scrutiny, and respond to legitimate concerns with legal threats, the brand may be premium, but the ethics decidedly are not.
- Thank You! We appreciate your effort.
