NOTES
v Charges under—Validity—Promoter of building agreeing to construct building and thereafter hand over flat to petitioner ---Willful refusal to deliver possession of said flat to petitioner—promoters selling said flat to other party—Agreement not registered—Held, it could not be side promoters could not be prosecuted on ground that agreement was not registered. Promoters could be charged with criminal of trust or cheating or any of offences under Ownership Flat Act.
v Where the promoter of the building who agreed to construct the building and thereafter hand over the flat to ‘A’, had refused to deliver possession of the said flat to ‘A’’ and they sold over the flat to ‘B’ in breach of the agreement, it could not be said that the promoters could not be prosecuted for the offences under sections 406,409.420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and section , 3,4,5,9,read with section ,1,14 of Ownership Flat Act on the ground that the agreement between promoter ‘A’ was registered under the Registration Act and since the agreement was not registered, the agreement had become void and therefore, no peaty could claim any right therein. It may be that certain civil rights of the par ties under the has Agreement which has become void may come to an end. The criminal liability of a party, however, will not be extinguished. A form the entire transaction between the parties. The oral representation made by one party to another or written document besides the Agreement may amount to an offence. In a specific case the charge of creation may depend upon the transaction apart form the Agreement which remained to be registered. Therefore it could not be that the promoter could not be charged with the offences of trust or creation or any the offences under the Ownership Flats Act. Pradeep Bhupatrai Vasa v/s Bombay Builders Pvt. Ltd. & other 1987(1) Bomc.r.327.
********
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.