<?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 (9) TMI 1736 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459598</link>
    <description>An assignee of a real estate project who steps into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter is treated as a promoter under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and must independently discharge pending project and allotment obligations. The assignment deed, including the purchasers named in its annexure, bound the assignee to the earlier liabilities, and the absence of a commencement certificate for unfinished work did not defeat that responsibility. A later unilateral termination of the assignment could not extinguish accrued rights, and the finding that interest was payable for delay in handing over possession was supported by the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:58:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1736 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459598</link>
      <description>An assignee of a real estate project who steps into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter is treated as a promoter under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and must independently discharge pending project and allotment obligations. The assignment deed, including the purchasers named in its annexure, bound the assignee to the earlier liabilities, and the absence of a commencement certificate for unfinished work did not defeat that responsibility. A later unilateral termination of the assignment could not extinguish accrued rights, and the finding that interest was payable for delay in handing over possession was supported by the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>