Extended period of limitation unsustainable; allowable deductions for prompt payment discounts, pro rata recovery, freight and VAT led to demand being...
Pendency of CIRP against a promoter does not, by itself, bar a society's application for deemed conveyance under MOFA. The Court held that the promoter's duty to convey the land and building arises from statutory and contractual obligations, and that deemed conveyance is a statutory mechanism to perfect the flat purchasers' title, not debt recovery or enforcement of a monetary claim. It further held that there is no inconsistency between MOFA and the IBC requiring exclusion under Section 238, and that the moratorium under Section 14 does not prevent the Competent Authority from deciding the application on merits. The refusal was set aside and the matter restored.
Pendency of CIRP against a promoter does not, by itself, bar a society's application for deemed conveyance under MOFA. The Court held that the promoter's duty to convey the land and building arises from statutory and contractual obligations, and that deemed conveyance is a statutory mechanism to perfect the flat purchasers' title, not debt recovery or enforcement of a monetary claim. It further held that there is no inconsistency between MOFA and the IBC requiring exclusion under Section 238, and that the moratorium under Section 14 does not prevent the Competent Authority from deciding the application on merits. The refusal was set aside and the matter restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
