UPDATE
Aug '15
TG
Test of marketability satisfies on being shown that product is capable of being sold and actual sale is irrelevant- SC
OF CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE -
Cross refer- Old Blogs on Realty - 'Final Conveyance'
PREV.
AT
Dec 24
BKC Internal Roads illegally converted into Car
Parking Zones
Dec 21
Society Dues recoverable only within three years
????...
BL
Real estate is no substitute for equity
UPDATE
Dec 19
AT
Can Society transfer the Share Certificate in the name of the nominee in spite of objections from legal heirs?
>>>>
?????????>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AT
Flat income tax of 8% chargeable for real estate business if no books kept : Delhi High Court
PREV.
Reply
December 17, 2014 at 9:09 AM
moneylife
Aug '15
TG
Test of marketability satisfies on being shown that product is capable of being sold and actual sale is irrelevant- SC
OF CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE -
Cross refer- Old Blogs on Realty - 'Final Conveyance'
PREV.
AT
Dec 24
Dec 21
Society Dues recoverable only within three years
????...
BL
Real estate is no substitute for equity
UPDATE
Dec 19
AT
Can Society transfer the Share Certificate in the name of the nominee in spite of objections from legal heirs?
>>>>
97th Constitution Amendment to Encourage Economic ...
Constitutional (97th amendment): declared ultra vires ...
Constitutional (97th amendment): declared ultra vires ...
ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 
9820174108
Ref. EXPERTS' mutually contradicting 'views' ?
97th Constitutional Amendment | Ramesh Prabhu on ...
CROSS REFER >
9820174108Ref. EXPERTS' mutually contradicting 'views' ?
97th Constitutional Amendment | Ramesh Prabhu on ...
CROSS REFER >
?????????>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AT
Flat income tax of 8% chargeable for real estate business if no books kept : Delhi High Court
The dispute is seen to have been,rather permitted to be, pursued unto
the HC, presumably on the only possible ground that there is a question
of law, of a substantial nature, requiring to be adjudicated by the
court.The point rightly made and conceded, however, is that section 44AD, being the only provision of law invoked, has, in
terms, no application to the given case. On that premise, the grave doubt
that is sure to have arisen in anyone’s mind, and cries aloud for
enlightenment, is this: In the given so also like cases, should not the dispute be given a quietus at the stage of, not allowed to travel beyond, the ITAT, being the
last fact finding authority. Over to ‘experts’ at large for
useful deliberation!
PREV.
Indraprastha Enclave in Borivali ( E)
Justice BH Marlapalle, in a decision delivered on April 25...
When the flat purchaser comes in Sathe Khat or/ Agreement to Sell (which must have to register under MOFA/ Apartment Act) with the builder and pay the money to builder, builder can not alter/change project plan. There are clear liabilities defined in both (MOFA/Apartment Act) laws for Builders and purchaser. There is clear difference defined in flat and apartment in respective law.
<< In this regard, the MCS by law no 78 and 79 which recognize and approve parking to a flat purchase if it is sold or allotted by builder. Is under vanishing state. The State Govt. is already started amend this bye-law. Because this by-law itself is contravention to the provisions of MOFA. But all this is pending as the case is in SC, wait and lets hope for the best.
If SC keeps judgment of Bombay high court as final judgment and passes the order then we will see new tussle between car parking purchaser/allottee and other who don’t have space to park their cars.
<> see markeds- Makes for a confusing reading !
http://puputupu.blogspot.in/2011/04/maharashtra-co-operative-housing.html#.VJA4_HsRqiA
< For a counter view,- addressing the proposition that why (A) both the laws require to be read together, not in isolation, and (B) that if so done, the mentioned difference in the definition is bound to fade into insignificance,- with supporting reasoning, attention is invited to the published analytical study (critique) in public domain on the previous SC Judgment / Ruling (in re. Panchali Hsg.) settling the very same issue as now by the HC.
Society can cancel parking slot allotted by Builder
December 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM
When the flat purchaser comes in Sathe Khat or/ Agreement to Sell (which must have to register under MOFA/ Apartment Act) with the builder and pay the money to builder, builder can not alter/change project plan. There are clear liabilities defined in both (MOFA/Apartment Act) laws for Builders and purchaser. There is clear difference defined in flat and apartment in respective law.
<< In this regard, the MCS by law no 78 and 79 which recognize and approve parking to a flat purchase if it is sold or allotted by builder. Is under vanishing state. The State Govt. is already started amend this bye-law. Because this by-law itself is contravention to the provisions of MOFA. But all this is pending as the case is in SC, wait and lets hope for the best.
If SC keeps judgment of Bombay high court as final judgment and passes the order then we will see new tussle between car parking purchaser/allottee and other who don’t have space to park their cars.
<> see markeds- Makes for a confusing reading !
http://puputupu.blogspot.in/2011/04/maharashtra-co-operative-housing.html#.VJA4_HsRqiA
< For a counter view,- addressing the proposition that why (A) both the laws require to be read together, not in isolation, and (B) that if so done, the mentioned difference in the definition is bound to fade into insignificance,- with supporting reasoning, attention is invited to the published analytical study (critique) in public domain on the previous SC Judgment / Ruling (in re. Panchali Hsg.) settling the very same issue as now by the HC.
Society can cancel parking slot allotted by Builder
December 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM
WRT the initial 2 paras, raising a question and giving the
answer "NO", and the reasoning given, in one's conviction, offends, besides
common sense, also the very scheme of things as embodied in the MOFA, rwt MAOA, and the following admitted premises /
legal position:
1. Until the crucial formality of “final conveyance”, has
been formally effected, the property in the “land and building” remains vested
with the promoter. The fact that as held by court , until such conveyance, the liability
to property tax continues to be that of the promoter itself goes to fortify the
stated position.
2. The viewpoints put across and canvassed, in sufficient detail,
in the published analytical study of (critique on) the SC judgment in re. Panchali
Hsng. Society case, -it could be urged/ submitted, -are not without substance
and force, but are backed up by sound reasoning given. Further, in any view, as brought out therein,
the said SC judgment cannot rightly be regarded to have so conclusively
decided/adversely clinched, as to be cited/relied on as a binding authority/precedent,
on the basic issue namely, the promoter’s right to ‘sell’/ ‘convey’ , along
with ‘flat’ , as appurtenant thereto, the car parking rights to buyer in the ‘limited
area’, as carved out of the common areas/facilities.
As of now, there is no gainsaying that, in the further
possible proceedings in Indraprastha case itself, or in any other case , the apex court
may be called upon to and hence adjudicate, fully and finally the point (s) of issue, having in mind the
attendant ramifications, from all
angles.
Now, it is left to the advising/representing lawyers, and their
individual expertise and competence, to
catalyse judicial opinion and assist the court in coming to a righteous conclusion, once for all.
*
Pending
a close reading of the referred judgment, one feels strongly that the verdict
of the HC appears to have merely endorsed /reiterated what has been earlier
ruled by the SC. The ruling has turned entirely on the factual matrix in the
given case, -”no builder can sell parking space under stilts SEPARATELY”, with
every emphasis to be placed on ‘SEPARATELY’. So much so, the write-up badly
titled, is seen to be so truncated as to be misleading. For an appreciation of
the merits of the point made, recommended to look up and mindfully read the
critique wrt the SC judgment, published and available in public domain. And
then, if agreed and satisfied, for sake of the readers’ ultimate benefit/ the
common good of the 'society' at large, come out with a supplementary
write-up.
Reply
Cross Refer
http://www.redevelopmentofhousingsociety.com/index.php/article-showcase/society-matters/definitions-and-rules-of-car-parking
The Aliakmon and Title to Sue: a recent Bombay decision
Q
>>>>
http://www.redevelopmentofhousingsociety.com/index.php/article-showcase/society-matters/definitions-and-rules-of-car-parking
The Aliakmon and Title to Sue: a recent Bombay decision
https://advocatekamalkumarpandey.wordpress.com/.../legal-news-16-11-...
......Q
· Learned Advocate Mr. Desai attempted to
distinguish the authority contending that the subject of dispute before Hon’ble
High Court was about the stilt parking or garage, which is not the dispute
before us. The authorities of superior courts cannot be distinguished by
hair splitting. The Hon’ble High Court has considered legal provisions and has
observed that under the MOFA Act Developer’s right is restricted to the extent
of disposal of flat, shop and/or garages which means that only premises which
is included in the FSI can be sold by the Developer/Promoter thus any space
beyond FSI cannot be sold and particularly under the name of parking space.
· In the
present case, the parking space is sold to the applicant merely by issuing a
letter, which does not transfer any right as required under provisions of
Transfer of Property Act. The Builder cannot sell any immoveable property
without registered Sale Deed and still retain right, title and interest therein
to be transferred to the Society. Once society is registered the Builder
does not remain owner thereof and therefore, purchaser of parking slot without
Registered Deed is no owner in the eye of law and Society may decline to take cognizance
of his claim of purchase.
UQ
>>>>
December 17, 2014 at 9:09 AM
OFFHAND (To
share own independent thoughts, for the ‘common good’)
Though not
so stated, there can be no doubt or denying that the observations / view points
of the writer brought to bear/ aired are based on, as a professional, his own
study and personal, independent understanding of, among others, the
"bye-laws", the last one referred being of 2001 .
Be that as
it could not have been expected to be otherwise, it may be noted that, the
latest Model Bye-Laws brought in, in 2013,- though, as understood, stalled for
the time being/ and yet to be given effect, -would ostensibly have every
relevance. Hence, it might be worthwhile
making an insightful study. That should help in an incisive understanding and
getting a true grip of what is in store, if and when the 2013 Model of Bye-laws is
announced and made effective. Even so, in one's mind, there is a very vital and
predominant doubt of all, of a grievous nature, having quite possibly far
reaching repercussions and consequences, impinging the common interests of one and
all concerned. That, in short, is , - as to what extent/ which of the new
provisions, if at all, sought to be brought in, could/ are intended to be applicable
/ adopted and followed retroactively; so as to impact, adversely or otherwise, the functioning/conduct of the affairs of the extant
housing societies already registered and in place. To put it differently, each of those societies will be obliged to have a detailed exercise carried out, may be not without the help of a law expert, for identifying and deciding how best all or any of those bye-laws should be fitted into the already adopted bye-laws, with the least impediment or messing up. As this is a very intricate
aspect, seemingly riddled with potentials for controversies galore, one
strongly feels that the State government/its concerned authorities ought to , if not already done, even now/beforehand,
mindfully consider and as far as
feasible, make the ‘intention’ clear on
the indicated and other related worrisome aspects.
KEY NOTE: On
a tentative perusal of the new Bye-laws (2013), as is noted, there are quite
many of its contents, which warrant a
deep study/application of mind by one and all concerned . Apart from the governmental
experts, the advising experts at large, in the interests of selves or own
clientele, need to do so and come out with a comprehensive unbiased/impartial
opinion /viewpoints; also share with the rest openly, the earliest, the better.
(Left open/ Welcome to ‘EDIT’ the foregoing,
with a public -centric outlook as earnestly expected)moneylife
| How To Deal With Your Co-operative Housing Society |
| Advocate Vinod Sampat |
Leading expert in CHS matters will cover: Unauthorised constructions & extensions; Misuse of power by Management Committee; Exorbitant transfer fees & donations; Burning issue of car parking; Repairs, renovations, leakages - maintenance issues, etc.; Redevelopment concerns; Conveyance |
