Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Sale X Works contract ; 'Illegal const.' ; CHS and 'U" ! Serial >>>>

New >

Banks’ customer service ratings to be made public from next year

Of the 48 banks rated, 5 got high ratings, 25 above average, 17 average and 1 below average
Banks should get their act together on customer services as the Banking Codes Standards B... »


Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs. State of T. N (Supreme Court – 5 Judge Bench)

<>  Tentative/Sporadic: 

One is not at all clear , much less can venture and say definitively to what extent or in what manner the ratio of the SC ‘s changed opinion on the two basic concepts of ‘sale’ and ‘works’ contract, or such similar likely developments in judge made law, is going to influence or impact the prevailing controversies galore in relation to other types of activities as well e.g. ‘construction’ (of say, immovable property of the kind- ‘flats’). And, likewise, what is in store after the long o/s enactment viz. on GST happens is well-nigh impossible to fore-see or -say. But, the strong indications , as may be well imagined, it appears, are towards an inevitable escalation of the vexing divide even now prevalent in the matter of revenue sharing between the Union and the States. In short, any hope on stability or uniformity in the understanding and implementation of such or other related / connected tax legislation, be it of the Union or States, might turn out to be a pipe dream.
Over to equipped and enlightened ‘experts’ for an in-depth deliberation, on altruistically useful lines.


SC explains distinction between “Contract for sale of goods” and “Works contract”


In the write-up there is no mention of a couple of, essentially crucial, facts:

1. Is the purchasers' asscn. referred to one duly formed and registered in accordance with the mandates of the KAOA (and its rules).

2. Has the 'formal conveyance' by the promoter to the Asscn. of the property in the complex been duly effected (i.e. handing over of all the related  legal docts.)

It is common knowledge that these two crucial aspects are being invariably overlooked, hence not focussed on and taken care, not only before taking up any such dispute to court, but even before it is decided by court.

For an illustration , and to know more, look up the principal issues raised in the ongoing litigation, for years, in LT south city case (as narrated on this website itself).

For some useful clues, requiring to be seriously kept in view and taken adequate care, with a view to avoding the otherwise inevitable consequence – falling between two stools so to say,-  attention is invited to the posted comments , in particular lately, on the article @ http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/4202-the-apartment-law-you-must-know.

Pending clarity, considered prudent not to, hence refrain from, posting the foregoing as ‘regular’ comments herein.

This message is being sent to the Editor as well for taking a proper note and follow-up action, called for, so as to serve the ‘common good’.


Authority to fight bank failures?
Authority to 'fight' is a patently misconceived idea, to fit in and expected to work any 'wonder'. The current scenario is the worst one can visualize; hence the need of the hour is a full fledged high powered 'regulator' and a sincere intensified exercise to redeem/salvage the situation, on the brink of otherwise inevitable disaster.
Any such so-oft repeated pointer to NPAs, that has been growing in leaps and bounds in recent years, forcibly brings to one's mind / sharp focus the (in)valuable/negative contribution determinedly made by the notorious sector- 'realty' , widely admitted as a highly disorganized and uncontrolled culprit primarily responsible for the current scenario. It is no longer a hidden secret that, besides the management of the suffered or victimized banks, the blame has to be undeniably shared in equal measure by the concerned rest- besides the property registrars, notably, the advising professionals , overwhelmingly commercialized, as they have chosen to remain (Lawyers, CAs (operating /functioning , equipped or not, in a dual /mutually conflicting capacity) , et al). Last but not least, the blame lies on the stakeholders as well, thanks to their blissful ignorance, impudence, or whatever it really is.

(an Update)

vswaminathan28 April 2014 


The responsibility of doing Audit of Co-operative Housing ...



FAQs on computation of VAT liability of developers after SC judgment in case of L&T Ltd.

While, to one’s understanding, according to the scheme of things it is the promoter/seller who is the principal debtor and should bear the VAT liability, invariably, unless otherwise agreed the liability is passed on and collected from the buyer of flat. On that premise, there seems to be no clarity whether there is any inbuilt mechanism for the buyer to verify and ascertain that at no point in time / at the final stage, VAT liability so passed on is nothing more or less than the actual, and on an apportionment basis. It is envisaged that there could be practical difficulty should the promoter successfully claims and is allowed a set-off posterior to recovery from the buyer.
Assuming that the problem posed is not misconceived or not without merit or substance, advisers/experts at large might wish to examine and throw light for the benefit of the buyers’ community; and also suggest an acceptable fair solution for obviating any excess collection and unjust enrichment by promoter.


Check this out, a new apartment law on the cards: Satarupa ...

<><> The contents of the first para. under, -Background calls for a closer scrutiny for an appreciation or otherwise, in proper light, of the observations therein. Particularly, the obervations that, -"....there is no uniform definition to be found that clearly distinguishes between a flat and an apartment." and "... The KAOA is clearly for apartments, there is a common misconception that the two are different. In reality," , if read in isiolation, those are rather misconstrued and misleading. Of course, as said, "KOFA as it exists now, applies to sales of apartments as well". Provided, in case what is sought to be conveyed is that KAOA and KOFA are so inter-linked and -connected, that either cannot be interpreted and implemented in several respects fully, without the aid of the other. This is the aspect on which one's considered viewpoints as covered in write-ups published in public domain may be looked up; topic to refer is-
 @Lci > 

Flats and Apartments - Special Features:
Flats and Apartments are, as envisaged by law, distinct from each other in certain material respects. Basically, the scheme of the provisions of law respectively applicable to them is different from each other. As such, the seller has to, even at the stage of launching a project, decide as to which of the two schemes he should adopt. To be precise, the seller should, before offering to the purchasers, decide whether the units of the multi-storeyed building constructed or to be constructed by him are to be sold as Flats or Apartments. As, only then, he could so devise his project as to take care of the relevant legal formalities and requirements. Also have the tenor and terms of the sale suitably drafted, for incorporating in the formal documents (the Agreement to Sell and Conveyance Deed) to be executed in favour of the purchasers.
For an appropriate drafting of the documentation, the seller ought to bear in mind the following fundamental aspects:
To Flats and Apartments, barring certain provisions commonly applicable to both, a different scheme of things or set of provisions apply as aforesaid. In Karnataka, these are embodied in two Acts (for brevity, referred to herein as the Flats Act and the Apartment Act), and in the relative Rules and Bye-laws.
The units, be they Flats or Apartments, are.—
separate units of a multistoried building;
independent from each other;
sold by the promoter/builder and purchased by the purchaser for a price;
capable of exclusive possession and enjoyment by the purchaser; and
above all, transferable and heritable.
However, they have certain distinguishing features. The material distinction may be explained thus:
The purchaser of a Flat, despite his having acquired the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the unit, does not become its “owner” in the absolute sense of the term. Neither in the Flats Act nor elsewhere he is referred to as “Flat Owner”. The same is the position with regard to his right to use the “common areas and facilities”. As specially defined, the term “common areas and facilities” means and includes the land on which the building stands, and all other wedded but common areas or facilities, e.g., the corridors, stairs, stairways, terrace, electric house, water pump shed, etc., located outside of the unit. These are available for use by the purchaser, for the purposes for which they are intended, jointly and in common with the other purchasers in the building.
In contrast, the purchaser of an Apartment is described in the Apartment Act as “Apartment Owner”. He is regarded as the absolute owner of the Apartment. Also, of an agreed undivided proportionate share in the “common areas and facilities” appurtenant to his Apartment. Even so, in the common interests of the co-owners, the law provides that no Apartment Owner is entitled to seek a partition or division thereof; particularly, so long as the property continues to be governed by the Act.
Requirements of/formalities under the Apartment Act:
To briefly focus:
Execution and registration of the Deed of Declaration in the prescribed Form i.e., Form ‘A’;
Execution and Registration of the Agreement to Sell/for Sale;
Execution and Registration of the Deed of Apartment (Conveyance Deed);
Formation and Registration of the Owners’ Association formed by the owners.
To elaborate:.....
(KLJ (2005)(5) pg.1)



Zero tolerance

Govt should prevent construction of illegal floors and buildings

< The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill was meant to bring to an end all such unsavoury practices. This was obviously not to the liking of the builders. Therefore, it isn't surprising that the Bill is yet to become law.> ?????

ST to SC

< xtract

The petitioner had claimed that the Noida Authority had given permission for raising the heights of the two towers, which were earlier supposed to have only 24 floors, "without maintaining the mandatory distance of 16 metres) from an adjoining building block, making it "unsafe, apart from blocking air and light".

"The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill WAS MEANT to bring to an end all such unsavory practices......" Prima facie it is too tall a claim to carry any conviction; sounds too optimistic, rather a figment of the writer's worst imagination; besides being a factually incorrect and palpably misleading observation/understanding - at best to be taken with, not just one, but a few pinches of salt if tolerance permits. So far as could be readily seen, there is nothing in the referred Bill, as gathered from the last published text, which holds out any such prospect as said. More importantly, the Bill left to itself, has no teeth, forget wisdom teeth, worth a noting as to usher in, that too in the near future, any marked change in the current scenario; for, what ought not to be impertinently over sighted is that, even after enactment of the Bill, its success or otherwise is going to be mostly dependent upon the will of the states; that is, to what extent/ and which of the States would adopt and make it applicable in their respective jurisdiction. Attention may be drawn to the like miserable experience say, in the matter of, apart from long pending GST, the so called 97th Amendment of the Constitution directly related to the notorious REALTY sector itself.

Who then is the prime culprit , if not NA who is equally culpable hance to share the blame with builder !


Are you paying a higher maintenance bill for housing society?
According to legal experts, housing societies cannot have by-laws prohibiting residents from keeping pets or charge them extra for it.

<> click here 

No comments:

Post a Comment