https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793856 Pendency of CIRP and the IBC moratorium did not bar the Competent Authority from deciding a deemed conveyance application under MOFA. The Bombay HC held that Section 11 of MOFA imposes a statutory duty on the promoter to convey title to the flat purchasers' society, and the deemed conveyance mechanism is a non-monetary statutory process to perfect title, not recovery or enforcement of a debt. The Court further held that Section 14 of the IBC does not extinguish or suspend such statutory obligations, and MOFA is not inconsistent with the IBC. The Competent Authority was therefore required to decide the application on merits. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793856 Pendency of CIRP and the IBC moratorium did not bar the Competent Authority from deciding a deemed conveyance application under MOFA. The Bombay HC held that Section 11 of MOFA imposes a statutory duty on the promoter to convey title to the flat purchasers' society, and the deemed conveyance mechanism is a non-monetary statutory process to perfect title, not recovery or enforcement of a debt. The Court further held that Section 14 of the IBC does not extinguish or suspend such statutory obligations, and MOFA is not inconsistent with the IBC. The Competent Authority was therefore required to decide the application on merits. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793856