Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GAURI GODSE
Krishna Constructions – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Uttam Dalv – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
GAURI GODSE, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by defendant nos. 1 to 3 to challenge the interim order passed in a suit filed by respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 is a purchaser of one flat in the building developed by the appellants. The agreement in favour of the plaintiff is executed under the provisions of The Maharashtra Ownerships Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”) by the appellants, i.e. defendant no. 1 as promoter. The partners of the promoter are joined as defendant nos. 2 and 3. Defendant no. 4 is the Pune Municipal Corporation [“corporation”], and defendant nos. 5 and 6 are officers of the corporation. Defendant no. 7 is the Architect of the project. Defendant nos. 8 to 105 are the flat purchasers in the building in question.
2. The suit is filed to seek rectification in terms of the agreement and specific performance of the rectified agreement, and challenge the amendment to the sanctioned layout. Various other reliefs are prayed, including a declaration that the additional floors constructed as per the amended plan are illegal and thus also challenged the flat purchase agreements in favour of the fl
Informed consent under MOFA mandates full disclosure by promoters regarding construction potentials and changes, affecting rights of flat purchasers.
Developers must adhere to disclosed building plans and obtain consent for alterations under MOFA, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations for transparency to flat purchasers.
Developers must disclose full development potential under MOFA, and construction exceeding this potential without consent from all flat purchasers is impermissible.
The court upheld the Developer's right to amend construction plans under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, emphasizing the need to consider balance of convenience and irreparable injury in grantin....
Landowner granting limited FSI/TDR rights to independent developer, reserving balance acknowledged by purchasers, not 'promoter' under MOFA; cannot be injuncted from using reserved rights; bare injun....
Third-party purchasers cannot enforce rights against a society after the termination of the developer's agreement; their remedies lie solely with the developer.
The Competent Authority under MOFA cannot adjudicate title disputes; it must fulfill statutory obligations to issue deemed conveyance to the Society.
Consent of existing flat owners is mandatory for modifications to original building plans under relevant statutes, and failure to secure such consent renders subsequent constructions illegal.
Deemed conveyance must only cover completed areas of a property, reserving rights of the developer for ongoing and future construction under applicable law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
