https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763167 Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 treats pre-deposit as a mandatory condition for a promoter's appeal. An insolvency moratorium confined to a different project of the same company did not excuse compliance, because it could not override the statutory requirement for the appeal in issue. Filing the appeal through the Interim Resolution Professional did not alter the company's character as promoter or remove the deposit obligation. An offer of a flat as security also could not substitute for the statutory pre-deposit. The stated effect is that the appeal remained subject to dismissal for non-compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Dec 2024 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763167 Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 treats pre-deposit as a mandatory condition for a promoter's appeal. An insolvency moratorium confined to a different project of the same company did not excuse compliance, because it could not override the statutory requirement for the appeal in issue. Filing the appeal through the Interim Resolution Professional did not alter the company's character as promoter or remove the deposit obligation. An offer of a flat as security also could not substitute for the statutory pre-deposit. The stated effect is that the appeal remained subject to dismissal for non-compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763167