https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83988 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. en-us Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:58:28 +0530 Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:58:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83988 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. Highlights Companies Law Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:58:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83988