The appellant's application seeking attachment of a flat in lieu of the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 43(5) of the RERA was dismissed. The court held that the appellant cannot claim benefit of the moratorium issued by the NCLT for an exemption from making the pre-deposit, as the insolvency resolution process pertains to a different project. The court upheld the requirement of pre-deposit as a precondition for hearing appeals under RERA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, rejecting the appellant's offer of a flat as security. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant's application seeking attachment of a flat in lieu of the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 43(5) of the RERA was dismissed. The court held that the appellant cannot claim benefit of the moratorium issued by the NCLT for an exemption from making the pre-deposit, as the insolvency resolution process pertains to a different project. The court upheld the requirement of pre-deposit as a precondition for hearing appeals under RERA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, rejecting the appellant's offer of a flat as security. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
