Saturday, December 25, 2010

The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963

v   Agreement under Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970---Liability to pay stamp duty---Agreement to sell and agreement of sale---Distinction for purpose of levy of stamp duty---Under the agreement the right, title and interest in the flat stood transferred in favour of purchaser on payment on installment ---Such document would be of sale is dutiable under Act by virtue of Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I---Held, stamp duty would be payable on such agreements. (Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Secs. 19, 54&55 (4)(b) --- Indian Registration Act, 1908, Secs. 17(1). The State of Maharashtra and others v/s Mohair latched Rathod and another 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 1; 1994(0) Bom.L.R. 110
v   Agreements---Registration---Requirement---Every agreement under the special Act is required to be registered---Consequences of non- registration provided under section 4A --- this provision is neither opposed to nor inconsistent with section 49 of Indian Registration Act---Held, section 49 cannot be invoked to nullify the mandatory provisions contained in sections 4 & 4A---Section 49 is a discretionary provisions .the stat of Maharashtra and other v/s Mohave Lachine Rathod and another 1992/(2)Bom.C.R 1;1994(0)Bom.L.R110
v   Suit under---Valuation of suit---Builder entering into agreement with flat purchaser containing portions which are to be incorporated as provided under Act---All such agreements must necessarily be special agreements much necessarily be held to be  special agreements which can be enforced by filing suits where valuation under section 6(iv)(i) of Bombay court fees Act---Held, it cannot be side that in such matters suit for specific performers should be valued under section 6(xi) of Bombay court fees Act, 1959.Mara Philomena Pereira v/s Rodriguez  Construction 199o(2)Bom.C.R 77;1991 (0)  AIR(Bom)27.
v   Criminal liability of promoter for want of registered agreements---Agreements not registered under section. 4---It connote be side that such agreements cannot be mindful foundation of criminal liability of promoter ---Held, promoter would be criminally liable even though the agreement was not registered. (1983) overruled: 1981 Bom.C.R 716 distinguished Swore Builders & others v/s Sheikh Mohr. Sangh &others 1987(2)Bom.C.R 731 (2) Mah.L.R 1285
v   Breach of section4---prosecution ---Limitation ---Agreements of seal between promoter and purchaser---Agreements not reduced to writing and registered by promoter ---Purchaser filing complaint after one year from the date of first payment made by him to promoter---period for prosecution under section 468 one year---Held, prosecution of promoter for breach of section 4would be barred by time Abdul Jabber Ibrahim v/s Seiko Builder &others 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 274; 1985 (0) Mah.L.R419;1985(0) Mh.L.J.163
v   Offences under---Criminal prosecution of promoter---Agreement of sale between him and purchaser---Agreement not reduced to writing and registered under section 4---Held, where agreement of sale 4 by promoter and purchaser was not reduced to writing and registered under section 4by promoter, penal liability for brasher of sections 4, 5,7,10 and 11 read with section 13 would flow even in cases where there was on written agreement, if reduced to writing remains unregistered. Abdul Jabber Ibrahim v/s Seiko Builder &other 1958(2) Bom.C.R 274; 1985 (0)Mah.L.R.419;1985(0)Mh.L.J. 163
v   Sale of terrace—of registered society whether permissible---Builder selling flat and also terrace to one the flat owners on the ground that builder had right to sell the remaining flat also percentage of common area facilities under section 10(1) of the Act---Held, none of the provisions of said Act individually or collectively enable the builder to sell the terrace as words ‘common area facilities’ etc. do not include the terraces and it cannot be sold to one the flat owners. Even if document if sale could show intention of builder to do so. it well be effected by absence of legal sanctity and authority of builder to do so. Ramagauri Keshvlal Virani v/s Walkeshwar Triveni Co-operative Housing society Ltd.& other 2000(2)Bom.C.R. 678; 1999 (0) AIR(Bom) 385; 1999 (3) Bom.L.R.164; 1999 (3) Mh.L.J.145.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.