<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (5) TMI 130 - MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407251</link>
    <description>A one-sided forfeiture condition in an unexecuted reservation form was treated as unenforceable where no agreement for sale, allotment letter, or confirmation letter had been issued. The forum held that the printed reservation term was unfair, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the protective object of real estate law, and that equitable relief could still be moulded through inherent powers to secure justice and prevent abuse of process. The refund direction based on a non-existent booking form was therefore unsustainable on the facts, and the promoter was required to refund the amount paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 16:23:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 130 - MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407251</link>
      <description>A one-sided forfeiture condition in an unexecuted reservation form was treated as unenforceable where no agreement for sale, allotment letter, or confirmation letter had been issued. The forum held that the printed reservation term was unfair, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the protective object of real estate law, and that equitable relief could still be moulded through inherent powers to secure justice and prevent abuse of process. The refund direction based on a non-existent booking form was therefore unsustainable on the facts, and the promoter was required to refund the amount paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>