Independent audit · methodology v1.0.0

M3M Mansion

M3M India · Sector 113, Gurgaon
Composite score
76
/ 100
Buy
Initial publish 23 Jun 2026
Independently audited · no engagement

We audited M3M India independently. M3M India has not engaged LandlordAgent for paid audit or marketing services. We receive no commission per sale from any developer, paid or unpaid.

Our take

Our take

M3M Mansion in Sector 113, Gurgaon scores 76 out of 100 on our composite model, placing it in the Buy band. That result is driven almost entirely by one very clean signal: the developer entity behind it. Where the project earns meaningful deductions — and where buyers should focus their own due diligence — is on documentation, locality data, and project-level delivery certainty.

Developer: the clearest strength

M3M India's entity scores a perfect 100 on our Developer sub-score. The MCA company status is Active, and our litigation screen returned zero court cases at the time of scoring. Those two factors — corporate standing and litigation density — combine at a 60/40 weight to produce a result that is unusual in our dataset. A clean litigation record on a builder operating at M3M's scale in Gurgaon is a material positive, not a formality. It does not guarantee project delivery, but it removes one of the most common structural risks NRI and OCI buyers encounter.

Project status: under construction with limited visibility

The Project sub-score of 62 reflects two realities. First, the project is under construction — an inherently lower-certainty state than ready-to-occupy, though not unusual for the Gurgaon luxury pipeline. Second, and more pointedly, the delivery posture is recorded as unknown. Our model penalises missing delivery data on the grounds that buyers cannot price timeline risk they cannot see. The score here would improve materially if possession timelines, construction milestones, and RERA registration details were publicly available. As it stands, those signals are absent.

On that note: no RERA registration was supplied for this project. For an under-construction project in Haryana, RERA registration is legally required before marketing commences. The absence of a registration number in our data is not confirmation that the project is unregistered — it may simply not have been provided to us — but it is a hard stop-and-verify item before any buyer proceeds. Do not rely on our composite score to substitute for a RERA check.

Configuration and price band data were also not supplied. This means our model cannot assess per-square-foot value relative to comparable launches or resale stock in Sector 113. Buyers should treat any pricing discussed in sales conversations as unverified against independent benchmarks.

Locality: thin data, one strong signal

The Locality sub-score of 67 is built on market signals that returned zero values for both price appreciation year-on-year and rental yield. This is not the same as saying the locality has seen no growth or generates no yield — it reflects a gap in the data we were able to retrieve at scoring time. Absent those two signals, the locality score leans on absorption pace, which scored 90, suggesting units in this micro-market move relatively quickly. That is a positive indicator for liquidity.

Sector 113 sits along the Dwarka Expressway corridor, which has seen sustained infrastructure investment, but we are not asserting specific price trends here beyond what the signal data supports. Buyers should independently source current transaction data for this sector.

Financial health: substantial capital, one gap

M3M India's paid-up capital of approximately INR 44.6 crore returns a capital score of 80. That is a meaningful level of registered capital and contributes positively to the Financial sub-score of 65. The drag on this sub-score comes from the RoC filing recency: the number of days since the last regulatory filing is null in our dataset. We flag this as low confidence on the filing dimension. A company that is current on MCA filings is easier to track and hold accountable; buyers should verify filing recency directly on the MCA portal before committing funds.

Risk: litigation-clean, but two unknowns

The Risk sub-score of 69 sits on a 90 for litigation — zero pending cases — which is a genuine positive. The two drag factors are the negative news ratio (null, because no recent news items were indexed) and the oversupply risk for the locality (also null). Absence of indexed news is not the same as a clean media record; it may simply reflect a data gap. Oversupply in the Dwarka Expressway corridor has been a known concern in prior cycles, and the inability to score it here means buyers should research current inventory levels independently.

Summary

M3M Mansion earns its Buy rating on the strength of a developer with an unusually clean legal and corporate profile, reasonable financial capitalisation, and healthy absorption signals in the locality. The case for caution rests on three specific gaps: no RERA registration confirmed, no delivery timeline on record, and thin locality price and yield data. None of these gaps are disqualifying on their own — but together they mean a buyer is accepting meaningful information risk alongside a credible developer. That risk is manageable with the right pre-signing checklist.


What to verify before signing

  • RERA registration: Confirm the project holds a valid RERA registration number on the Haryana RERA portal (hrera.org.in) and review the approved layout, possession date, and escrow account details filed there.
  • Possession timeline and construction stage: Conduct a physical site visit and request the builder's officially filed construction schedule; compare against the RERA-committed possession date.
  • MCA filing recency: Cross-check M3M India's latest annual return and financial statement filing dates on the MCA21 portal to confirm regulatory compliance is current.
  • Independent price benchmarking: Obtain registered transaction data (stamp-duty records) for comparable units in Sector 113 to validate the price per square foot being quoted.
  • Locality inventory and rental comparables: Commission a short independent market report or speak with at least two non-builder brokers to assess current unsold inventory and achievable rental yield in the immediate micro-market.

Editorial commentary supplements — does not replace — the rubric below. Both are reviewed at every audit revision.

Score breakdown

Every sub-score is derived from raw signals in our ingest pipeline. Click through each card to see exactly what we measured.

developer
Weight 30%
100 / 100

Developer score blends MCA company status (Active) with court-case load (0 cases). Status contributes 60%, litigation density 40%.

View underlying signals
mca_company_status Active
mca_status_score 100
court_case_count 0
court_case_score 100
project
Weight 20%
62 / 100

Project score weighs operational status (under_construction, 60%) and delivery posture (unknown, 40%).

View underlying signals
operational_status under_construction
operational_score 70
delivery_posture unknown
delivery_score 50
locality
Weight 20%
67 / 100

Locality score blends price YoY (0%, 40%), rental yield (0%, 30%) and absorption months (0 mo, 30%).

View underlying signals
price_yoy_pct 0
price_score 65
rental_yield_pct 0
yield_score 45
absorption_months 0
absorption_score 90
financial
Weight 15%
65 / 100

Financial score combines paid-up capital (446,100,000 INR, 50%) and RoC filing recency (unknown days, 50%).

View underlying signals
paid_up_capital_inr 446100000
capital_score 80
days_since_last_filing null
filing_score 50
risk
Weight 15%
69 / 100

Risk score (higher = safer) combines news sentiment (no recent items, 40%), pending litigation (0 cases, 30%) and locality oversupply (unknown, 30%).

View underlying signals
recent_news_count 0
negative_ratio null
sentiment_score 60
pending_cases 0
litigation_score 90
oversupply_risk null
oversupply_score 60

How we got here

Methodology
v1.0.0
Generated
23 Jun 2026
Published
23 Jun 2026
Audit version
v2

This audit was produced using LandlordAgent's published rubric (read the full methodology). Sub-score formulas, weights, and band thresholds are public — we do not adjust the rubric to favour any developer. When source data is missing for a signal, the sub-score uses a documented neutral fallback and we flag those zones above.

Disclaimer. Audits represent our best assessment as of the publish date and are not investment advice. Property markets are subject to regulatory, financial, and macroeconomic risks. Buyers should consult their own legal, tax, and financial advisors before transacting.

Receipts

What we looked at

Every score on this page traces back to one or more of these underlying records. Where the source is public (court records, news) we link straight to it; MCA + locality snapshots are held internally and refreshed on a schedule.

Missing a source you think we should have looked at? Tell us below — the next audit version can fold it in.

Stay informed

Email me when this audit updates

We re-audit when fresh signals land (new court filings, RoC update, RERA change, locality data, news). You'll get a one-line email with what changed — nothing else.

Share this audit
Send it to anyone reviewing this project — family, lawyer, banker. The whole audit, fully sourced.
WhatsApp LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
Disagree with this audit?

Tell us what we got wrong

We publish audits as-is, including for builders that pay us. If our scoring or reasoning misses a signal — incident, source, court case, locality detail — push back. Real-name feedback gets faster review; anonymous works too.

Reviewed within 7 working days · We never publish names without consent