Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.99 seconds)
Mahavir Terrace Co-Operative Housing ... vs Shri.Govindram K Tibrewala on 18 October, 2024 cites

M/S.Noopur Developers vs Himanshu V Ganatra on 14 January, 2010

In Noopur Developers vs Himanshu V. Ganatra (supra), this Court, while considering the clauses in the agreements executed in that case giving right to promoter to carry out additional construction by reason of additional FSI being available, has held that the clauses has to be considered in context of requirement of disclosure of the entire scheme to be carried out in the layout. The Promoter is required to make disclosure concerning the inherent FSI and also at the stage of layout plan he is required to declare whether the plot in question in future is capable of being loaded with additional FSI/floating FSI/TDR. Necessarily therefore, if the entire scheme including the information about TDR/FSI is not disclosed then the promoter loses the right to use the residual FSI.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - C L Pangarkar - Full Document

Kalpita Enclave Co-Operative Housing ... vs Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd. on 16 August, 1985

In case of Jamuna Darshan Co-op Hsg Society Ltd and Ors vs M/s JMC & Meghani Builders and Ors (supra) , the Court was considering an application seeking temporary injunction from carrying out construction. In that case, the Learned Single Judge held that the flat purchaser cannot be heard to obstruct the development activity in relation to an open plot so long as their original structure and flats remain unaltered and undisturbed. Pertinently, the Learned Single Judge did not accept the contention about non requirement prior consent of the flat purchaser by observing that Section 7 of MOFA protects the rights of flat purchaser to the limited extent of any alteration in the structure described in the agreement in respect of the flats which are agreed to be purchased by them. The decision would assist the case of the Plaintiff that as addition was proposed to the existing structure of the flat purchasers, the informed prior consent was necessary.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Ravindra Mutneja, Rajendra Mutneja, ... vs Bhavan Corporation A Partnership Firm, ... on 27 February, 2003

24. As far as registration of Society is concerned, the Defendants having failed to comply with the mandatory statutory obligations under Section 10 MOFA read with Rule 8 and having failed to get the Society registered cannot take advantage of its own default and claim entitlement to the unconsumed residual FSI without the consent of Plaintiffs for the reason that the Society was not registered till the IOD was obtained in the year 2005. As held in Ravindra Mutneja (supra) once building is completed and purchasers put in occupation and time to form Society is over, permission of such purchasers would be required.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 25 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Bjranglal Eriwal And Ors. vs Sagarmal Chunilal And Ors. on 27 March, 2008

31. As far as Clause 35 of the Agreement is concerned, the same provides that the Developer shall be free to construct any additional structure such as sub station, Society office, departmental stores, garages, underground tanks etc for the construction of which the flat purchaser will not create any obstruction. The said Clause cannot constitute a consent by the flat purchasers for construction of additional floors on the existing structure of the building. Sufficient guidance can be taken from the decision in Bajranglal Eriwal and others vs Sagarmal Chunilal and orthers 2008(5) Mh.L.J. 571 where the Court has held as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next