K-RERA · the public record
Embassy Springs - Phase 2A, Apartments
Devanahalli · EMBASSY DEVELOPMENTS
Project Review · example purchase
Spending a few crores on a home? ₹4,999 to check what you’re buying.
Check what the plans put beside your home, below it and in front of it. The view, nearby buildings and shared facilities can change what you are buying.
From another project · Prestige Park Grove
Avoid bad decisions, only go for the best homes.
Read the complete sample: unit choices, layout illustrations, important risks and questions for the builder. Its findings concern the named sample, not this project.
Read the Project Review sample ↗
From another project · Prestige Park Grove · earlier comprehensive example
A larger advertised area. Almost the same carpet area.
In Tower 14, E4 has 141 sq ft more saleable area than E2. Its carpet area is only 0.46 sq m larger. The report puts the two layouts side by side.
This longer example shows the depth of research available in Project Deep Dive. These findings concern the named sample, not this project.
Read the Prestige Park Grove sample report ↗
Free project details
Registration read 25 Oct 2026Construction progress and dates
Promoter-reported construction
K-RERA quarterly filings · Q3 2025 to Q1 2026
declared completion
28 Feb 2023
The registered date and a construction update answer different questions. Neither is a confirmation of possession.
K-RERA registration · read 25 Oct 2026
Registered units and project size
Filed categories, unchanged · K-RERA registration · read 25 Oct 2026
The whole registration
7.8registered acres
106.2registered units per acre
The average covers the registered land and all registered unit types. It does not describe the space, outlook or surroundings of an individual unit.
RERA details for Embassy Springs - Phase 2A, Apartments
K-RERA · PRM/KA/RERA/1250/303/PR/180526/001825
Project facts and comparisons
On the register
In context
Source: K-RERA. Each comparison names the group of projects used.
Project areas, parking and inventory
Project areas and parking
RERA filing| Disclosure | Official value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Registered units | 826 | Total inventory registered with K-RERA. |
| Registered land area | 31,461 sqm | The land area attached to this K-RERA registration. |
| Sanctioned FAR/FSI | 2.5 | Higher FAR generally means a denser vertical build, subject to site layout and open-space design. |
| Registered tower/wing entries | 5 | Official tower/wing count in the K-RERA detail page. |
| Parking total (reconciled) | 1,029 | Separate filed counts; these categories may overlap and are not added together. |
| Open-parking field | 334 | Separate filed counts; these categories may overlap and are not added together. |
| Garage field | 0 | Separate filed counts; these categories may overlap and are not added together. |
| Project start date | 20-02-2018 |
Official inventory & towers
RERA filingK-RERA registration tables showing the project mix and tower/wing scale. Use this to sanity-check sales claims such as "only large homes", "low density", or "plenty of parking" against the filed inventory.
Registered tower / wing summary
| Tower/wing | Floors | Units | Parking | Height |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardenia | 14 | 252 | 345 | - |
| Hibiscus | 14 | 112 | 158 | - |
| Fucshia | 14 | 112 | 158 | - |
| Daisy | 14 | 196 | 213 | - |
| Elderberry | 14 | 154 | 155 | - |
Official unit register
RERA filingK-RERA detail-page flat rows: exact unit numbers, official carpet area, UDS, and parking lots. 406 official flat/unit rows vs 826 registered units disclosed above; ask why the row count differs. Use this as a checklist against the specific flat number in your cost sheet and draft agreement.
By unit type
| Unit type | Rows | Carpet area | UDS | Parking lots |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 308 | 38.2-84.7 sqm | 21.6-49.9 sqm | 308 |
| Others | 98 | 38.2-84.7 sqm | 21.6-49.9 sqm | 98 |
By tower / wing
| Tower/wing | Rows | Carpet area | UDS | Parking lots |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daisy | 98 | 38.2-84.7 sqm | 21.6-49.9 sqm | 98 |
| Elderberry | 98 | 60.8-84.7 sqm | 35.2-49.9 sqm | 98 |
| Gardenia | 98 | 38.2-75.4 sqm | 21.6-45.8 sqm | 98 |
| Fucshia | 56 | 60.3-82.8 sqm | 35.1-49.6 sqm | 56 |
| Hibiscus | 56 | 60.3-82.8 sqm | 35.1-49.6 sqm | 56 |
Show sample official unit rows
| Unit | Tower | Floor | Type | Carpet | UDS | Parking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | Gardenia | 1 | Other | 75.4 sqm | 44.0 sqm | 1 |
| 102 | Gardenia | 1 | Other | 75.4 sqm | 44.4 sqm | 1 |
| 103 | Gardenia | 1 | Other | 42.0 sqm | 24.7 sqm | 1 |
| 104 | Gardenia | 1 | Other | 38.2 sqm | 21.6 sqm | 1 |
| 105 | Gardenia | 1 | Other | 67.3 sqm | 39.9 sqm | 1 |
| 106 | Gardenia | 1 | Other | 59.7 sqm | 35.0 sqm | 1 |
Legal, Approvals & Project Team
Litigation & compliance
RERA filing⚠ 32 litigation cases on record
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2015)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2016)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2015)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2019)
- Civil — 1 st Additional Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Yeshwanth (2020)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2006)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2011)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2006)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2014)
- Civil — The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Hon'ble Judge Mr.Sunil Dutt Yadav (2025)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2015)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2015)
- Civil — Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Chandrika (2015)
- Civil — The Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Venkatesh (2019)
- Civil — The High Court of Karnataka Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon'ble Justice Vijaykumar A Patil (2019)
- Civil — Principal Civil Judge & JMFC Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Venkatesh (2015)
- Civil — 2 Additional Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Yeshwanth (2015)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2015)
- Civil — 2 Additional Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Yeshwanth (2013)
- Civil — Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Chandrika (2016)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2015)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2016)
- Civil — Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Chandrika (2015)
- Civil — Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Chandrika (2015)
- Civil — Principal Civil Judge & JMFC Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Venkatesh (2015)
- Civil — Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Hon'ble Judge Praveen Nayak (2008)
- Civil — High court of Karnataka Hon'ble Justice Ashok.S.Kinagi (2017)
- Civil — The High Court of Karnataka Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K.Singh and Hon'ble Justice S.Rachaiah (2018)
- Civil — The Additional Civil Judge, Devanahalli Judge Chandrika (2025)
- Civil — III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli Judge Yeshawanth (2025)
- Civil — The Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli Judge Praveen Nayak (2019)
- Civil — 2 Additional Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli Yeshwanth (2021)
1 of 25 compliance document slots are filed as Not Applicable; the remaining 24 slots have usable uploaded filings.
No completion certificate (OC) on file yet — project has not been declared complete.
See the filed approval statuses and linked documents →
K-RERA complaint orders (5 complaints against a project of this name on K-RERA's orders register)
| Parties | Relief sought | Disposal | Order date |
|---|---|---|---|
| NARASIMHA SASTRY VASANTH vs EMBASSY SPRINGS PHASE 2 | Return of money paid of Rs 5.90 Lakhs + interest for the period till date @18% PA. No agreement or booking form executed. | AUTHORITY | 31/10/2023 |
| Prajit S Nair vs NAM Estaes Pvt Ltd. | Request clarification on Rs.30000 which ws forefeited | AUTHORITY | 21/02/2023 |
| ASHITA GUPTA vs NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED | Refund of the advance amount of Rs. 8,52,334/- along with 18% interest from the date of payment till realisation. | AUTHORITY | 06/03/2025 |
| Babu Shravani puri vs Emphasis Spring Phase 2A | Order to refund Rs. 8,06,350 with applicable interest and compensation for the delay & agony caused | AUTHORITY | 03/12/2024 |
| P. MAHESH SHANMUGAM & LAKSHMI MAHESH vs NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED | refund of the amount paid initially | AUTHORITY | 02/05/2024 |
⚠ Matched by PROJECT NAME (the orders register carries no registration number) — confirm the respondent above is this project's builder before relying on it.
Complaints on this project's K-RERA page (3 complaints listed against this promoter)
| Complaint | Subject (as filed) | Project | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMP/211113/0008553 13-11-2021 | Refund of Expression of Interest Amount not done despite reminders | Embassy Springs - Phase 1, Plotted Development (another project by this promoter) | DISPOSED AUTHORITY BENCH4 |
| CMP/211206/0008692 06-12-2021 | Request Refund of Rs.30000/- forfeited amount | Embassy Springs - Phase 2A, Apartments | DISPOSED AUTHORITY BENCH5 |
| CMP/221014/0010102 14-10-2022 | The total flat in booking from is higher than what was agreed | Embassy Springs - Phase 2A, Apartments | DISPOSED AUTHORITY BENCH5 |
Listed on the project's own K-RERA detail page (registration-exact source). Rows on the promoter's other projects are track-record context — read the subject text, it is the complainant's own filed wording.
Statutory approval status
RERA filing10 further authority slots are marked not applicable in the filing.
| Authority / NOC | Status | Date | File |
|---|
Project team & certifications
RERA filingK-RERA names 2 project professional/vendor rows across Architect, Structural engineer. Use this to cross-check whose certificates, drawings, and contractor commitments support the filing; final reliance still belongs with your lawyer/technical reviewer.
| Role | Name | Registration / licence | Since | Locality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architect | Synergy Property Development Private Limited | - | 200 | Intermediate Ring Road, Kormangala |
| Structural engineer | Nadig Consulting Private Limited | - | - | - |
Builder track record
RERA filingEmbassy has 9 other K-RERA-registered projects in our records — grouped across the several project-specific entities this developer registers under (e.g. this project is filed as “Embassy Developments”) (average reported construction progress 52%). 4 are past their declared completion deadline with no completion certificate recorded — but because K-RERA publishes OCs inconsistently, a project that has actually been finished and handed over still shows up this way, so this overstates real delays, especially for a high-volume established builder. That is a lower delayed rate than the K-RERA average across Bengaluru on the same measure.
Read this as a list to spot-check for a pattern of genuinely stalled projects, not as a delay rate — pull up a few of the builder’s other K-RERA registrations and check whether they’ve actually been delivered.
Financials & Construction Progress
Financial disclosures
RERA filingLatest quarterly filing (2026-Q1): ₹15.17 Cr collected from buyers, ₹14.11 Cr withdrawn from the project's escrow account.
| Construction progress | 61% → 72% (+11 pts) |
| Units sold/booked as registered | 673/826 (81%) |
| Buyer collections in available QPRs | ₹66.20 Cr |
| Escrow withdrawals in available QPRs | ₹45.08 Cr (0.68x collections) |
- Construction progress moved from 61% to 72% across the filed QPR window.
- The builder has drawn 0.68x of buyer collections from escrow (about 68% of the ₹66 Cr collected) — money is largely staying in the regulated escrow account rather than being pulled out ahead of spend, which is the safer direction. A ratio near or above 1.0 would be the one to scrutinise.
QPR figures are developer-filed quarterly disclosures. Collections and withdrawals are not a project valuation; they are a sanity check for whether sales, construction progress, and escrow draws appear directionally aligned.
Declared construction cost ÷ registered units averages to ₹41.1 lakhs per unit — the developer's own declared construction/development cost, not a unit agreement or asking price. This project-cost average cannot establish whether a quoted unit price is fair. Compare the exact unit, area basis, date and included charges in any price evidence.
RERA 70% project account is on file: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK MG Road (IFSC KKBK0008066, a/c …5352). RERA requires 70% of buyer collections to sit in this separate, project-specific account, drawn only against certified construction milestones — confirm your payments are made to THIS account (not a general builder account) and that it appears on your allotment letter.
Location & Connectivity
The nearest of the listed job hubs is about 18 km in a straight line from the mapped location. Road distance and travel time will differ.
| Landmark | Straight-line |
|---|---|
| Kempegowda Int'l Airport | 9 km |
| Outer Ring Road / Manyata | 18 km |
| MG Road / city centre | 25 km |
| Whitefield IT hub | 29 km |
| Bellandur–Marathahalli belt | 31 km |
| Electronic City | 40 km |
Straight-line distances from the geocoded project locality (the RERA address is an area, not a door) — directional, not door-to-door drive times. Check the actual road route, the nearest metro station and daily-need shops/schools/hospitals on a site visit.