Case Law Details
Case Name : Hill Properties Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and others (Supreme Court of India)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
Supreme Court of India
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Most of the flat owners purchase the flat by availing of loan from various banking institutions by mortgaging their rights over the purchased flat. By purchasing the flat, the purchaser, over and above his species of right over the flat, will also have undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, in the percentage as prescribed. Flat owners will also have the right to use the common areas and facilities in accordance with the purpose for which they are intended. It is too late in the day to contend that flat owners cannot sell, let, hypothecate or mortgage their flat for availing of ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
0 Comments
Cancel reply
I always prefer to read what Taxguru says on income tax, company law & other acts . It is very precise and to the point. Comments by the advocates / CAs are also fine and without any ambiguity.
@vswami
Concluding para of last post – in the last line,- to be read- “before” (NOT ‘after’)
Adding On a second thought:
The discussion in the write-up at the Link, –
ITAT Order in re. Shantikumar D Majithia vs. DCIT (ITAT … – TaxGuru,
it is hoped,might provide more clues for an appreciation of the matter in proper light and in a wholesome manner.
It requires to be specially borne in mind, that the factual matrix/ the episode in the referred itat case relates to a period long after the coming into force of the special State law governing ‘Flats’. To be precise, that was a case in which the ‘company’ was one incorporated post enactment of the mentioned special law. On the contrary, ‘Hill Properties’ , according to external information, is a company incorporated in the year 1950; that is, when the special law was not on the statute book. To put it differently, he issues in that case would necessarily require to be examined and decided having no regard or being influenced in any manner by the special law.
All the more so because, unlike in the similar special law enacted by Tamil Nadu (refer section 2 of the Apartment Ownership Act of that State),the special law in Maharashtra (so also in other States such as, Karnataka)does not make it applicable , rightly and prudently so,to a building ‘constructed’ after the date of commencement of that Act.
For owen independent view on related points and other info.,for use, recommend to look up the Blog
@ vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2013/09/flat-occupasny-ownership.html;
And other connected Blogs as well.
Many thanks for the legal update.