https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778560 An asserted deemed grant of occupancy certificate was rejected because the occupancy/completion application lacked timely and complete compliance, was later found deficient under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, and was ultimately rejected; RERA therefore continued to apply. The Court also treated the promoter's pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 as a mandatory condition precedent for appeal, and held that the appellate tribunal could not entertain the challenge without the prescribed deposit. No statutory basis existed to replace the deposit with immovable-property security, so dismissal of the appeals was upheld. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778560 An asserted deemed grant of occupancy certificate was rejected because the occupancy/completion application lacked timely and complete compliance, was later found deficient under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, and was ultimately rejected; RERA therefore continued to apply. The Court also treated the promoter's pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 as a mandatory condition precedent for appeal, and held that the appellate tribunal could not entertain the challenge without the prescribed deposit. No statutory basis existed to replace the deposit with immovable-property security, so dismissal of the appeals was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778560