Safe food part of right to life

Oct 30 2013, 04:09 IST
Comments 0
SummaryRealtors can’t suppress right to property

Realtors can’t suppress right to property

The Supreme Court has said that flat owners can sell, let, hypothecate or mortgage their flats for availing of loans without permission of the builder, society or the company as the right to occupy a flat is a species of right to property.

“… so far as a builder is concerned, the flat owner should pay the price of the flat. So far as the society or company in which the flat owner is a member, he is bound by the laws or Articles of Association of the Company, but the species of his right over the flat is exclusively that of his. That right is always transferable and heritable,” the top court ruled while rejecting the appeal of Hill Properties Ltd (HPL) against the attachment of a Malabar Hill flat. It further said that “neither the Companies Act nor any other statute make any provision prohibiting the transfer of species of interest to third parties or to avail of loan for the flat owners’ benefit. A legal bar on the saleability or transferability of such a species of interest, in our view, will create chaos and confusion. The right or interest to occupy any such flat is a species of property and hence has a stamp of transferability”.

A shareholder of HPL had mortgaged the flat as security for a loan transaction. However, on the bank’s plea, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had attached the flat in August 2005 under the Securitisation Act.This was challenged by HPL before the Bombay HC, which rejected its plea. SC also rejected HPL’s argument that a shareholder has only a right to occupy the flat and has no right to mortgage the same to the bank without permission of the company.

Wine producers fail to impress SC

SC has upheld the Bombay High Court’s order that refused to allow the wine producers from Maharashtra to retain the excise duty, which was collected by making it a part of the maximum retail price (MRP), on the grounds that such action “without allowing it to flow back to the state coffers would amount to unjust-enrichment”.

Dismissing the appeals of a group of wine manufacturers, the apex court clarified that account books of those who had not collected the levy should reflect this and the same should be brought to the notice of authorities.To protect the grape-growing producers, particularly from the districts of Sangli

Single Page Format
Ads by Google
Reader´s Comments
| Post a Comment
Please Wait while comments are loading...