Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA
Cable Corporation of India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Western Edge II Premises – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges injunction freezing owner's reserved fsi. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. limited fsi granted to developer; balance reserved to owner. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. society seeks extra fsi for unauthorized alterations regularization. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. landowner not mofa promoter; contracts limit developer fsi. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. owner causes construction, qualifies as promoter needing consent. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 6. no agency; bare injunction invalid without title declaration. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 7. developer independent; fsi reservation specifically disclosed. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 8. granting dev rights does not make owner mofa promoter. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 9. section 7 inapplicable to owner's independent reserved fsi use. (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 1 |
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.
Deemed conveyance must only cover completed areas of a property, reserving rights of the developer for ongoing and future construction under applicable law.
Disputes over excess area or title in deemed conveyance orders under MOFA Section 11(3) are for civil courts, not writ jurisdiction; promoters cannot retain land via private clauses against statutory....
The court affirmed that deemed conveyance under MOFA can apply to composite societies, despite differing member agreements, emphasizing equitable treatment and the necessity of proper procedural comp....
The court ruled that a developer's right to complete construction cannot be denied due to the execution of a deemed conveyance; proportional land conveyance is valid under the Maharashtra Ownership F....
A covenant in a Deed of Conveyance runs with the land and binds successor parties, holding statutory presumption of validity unless specifically challenged.
The court established that an agreement recognizing tenants as owners of flats, coupled with the receipt of consideration for those flats, qualifies the landlord as a promoter under the Maharashtra O....
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
