Deemed conveyance under MOFA survives insolvency moratorium; statutory duty to convey title must still be decided on merits.

Pendency of CIRP and the IBC moratorium did not bar the Competent Authority from deciding a deemed conveyance application under MOFA. The Bombay HC held that Section 11 of MOFA imposes a statutory duty on the promoter to convey title to the flat purchasers' society, and the deemed conveyance mechanism is a non-monetary statutory process to perfect title, not recovery or enforcement of a debt. The Court further held that Section 14 of the IBC does not extinguish or suspend such statutory obligations, and MOFA is not inconsistent with the IBC. The Competent Authority was therefore required to decide the application on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether pendency of corporate insolvency resolution proceedings and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bar the Competent Authority from exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 to grant deemed conveyance in favour of a flat purchasers' society.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 obliges the promoter to convey title to the society and enables unilateral deemed conveyance where the promoter fails to do so. The Court held that this is a statutory, non-monetary function meant to perfect title and does not amount to recovery or enforcement of a debt. It further held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extinguish or suspend statutory duties owed under MOFA, and that the deemed conveyance mechanism is not inconsistent with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court relied on the principle that statutory obligations and regulatory actions in public interest continue despite insolvency, and that the corporate debtor's alleged asset could not be treated as a bar to the Competent Authority acting under MOFA.

Conclusion: The pendency of CIRP did not bar adjudication of the deemed conveyance application, and the Competent Authority was bound to decide it on merits.

---