<?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>2019 (3) TMI 1994 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304539</link>
    <description>An allottee in a real estate project was recognised as having the option either to take possession of the flat or to seek refund of the amounts paid. As possession had been declined, the allottee was entitled to refund with interest. The insolvency proceeding initiated against the respondent was also set aside as a consequence of that entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2022 19:01:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1994 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304539</link>
      <description>An allottee in a real estate project was recognised as having the option either to take possession of the flat or to seek refund of the amounts paid. As possession had been declined, the allottee was entitled to refund with interest. The insolvency proceeding initiated against the respondent was also set aside as a consequence of that entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>