Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC
Although the terms flat and apartment are often used interchangeably, both are defined differently under the law- The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. (SEE BOX). This distinction affects how maintenance is calculated. In most co-operative housing societies governed by the 1971 Act, maintenance is typically charged equally per flat. However, in apartment-condominiums governed by the 1970 Act, maintenance must be charged in proportion to the carpet area of each unit, since every apartment owner is a shareholder in the common property.
The HC's decision came in a dispute involving Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune with 356 flats across 11 buildings. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to collect equal maintenance charges from all flat owners, regardless of the flat size.
Owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022, arguing that it violated the law, which clearly states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the common areas—something that depends on the size of the apartment. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally.
Owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They then moved the Bombay high court. Their lawyer argued that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents, and that assuming bigger flats have more residents—and therefore must pay more—is unfair.
However, the high court disagreed. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size.
Dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas.
While under the 1971 Act, flat owners are entitled only to their individual units and access to common amenities, the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 gives apartment owners legal ownership of an undivided share in the land and common areas of the property—essentially making them co-owners of the entire premises.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
IBBI calls for discussions in CoC meeting on 29A eligibility under IBC
Taking a cue from the Supreme Court's order rejecting the JSW's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), the insolvency regulator has proposed various steps to strengthen the process of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), including mandatory requirement for the committee of creditors (CoC) to formally deliberate on the eligibility of the resolution applicant under section 29A of the IBC. In a discussion paper released on Wednesday, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed that all prospective resolution applicants submit a statement of beneficial-ownership. The idea behind the proposed changes to IBC regulations is to bring more transparency and procedural fairness to corporate insolvency resolution. The IBBI has also proposed online invitation and submission of resolution plans. The Supreme Court's two-judge bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in its May 2 order in the BPSL matter had come down heavily on the CoC and the resolution professional (RP). It said that the RP had 'utterly failed' to discharge statutory duties and the CoC failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the resolution plan of JSW. 'While the order may have been repealed, we went through the SC's observations to try to make the processes under IBC more robust,' a senior official told Business Standard. 'Parliamentary committees and expert groups have underscored the urgent need for robust digital infrastructure to promote procedural fairness, transparency, and confidentiality in the insolvency process,' the discussion paper highlighted. The IBBI proposal now requires the CoC to formally discuss and record its deliberation on section 29A eligibility of the resolution applicant. This section sets out ineligibility criteria for resolution applicants under IBC, barring wilful defaulters, undischarged insolvent person, related party, such as personal guarantor among others from taking part in the resolution process. IBBI said that this would help CoC members to engage more deeply in the due diligence process, reduce potential litigation on eligibility-related issues under section 29A and enhance transparency. The regulator has also suggested that the resolution applicants submit an affidavit stating whether they are eligible for the benefit of section 32A, which provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its property from prosecution for offences committed prior to commencement of the CIRP. This has been proposed, IBBI said, to uphold the integrity of the process and prevent any potential abuse. 'The benefit of the clean slate principle under the IBC can only be availed if the conditions laid down in section 32A are stringently fulfilled,' the IBBI discussion paper said. On similar lines, as the online auction platform for liquidation process under IBC, which is effective from April 1, 2025, IBBI has proposed digitising the broader resolution process online, such as invitation and submission of resolution plans. The 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on 'Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)' had recommended implementation of a direct submission system for resolution plans through a central online portal.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
ELSA 3 capsize compensation claims: State has no jurisdiction, shipping company tells Kerala HC
Kochi: Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) has submitted before high court that the state govt has no authority to seek maritime claims in connection with the capsizing of the vessel ELSA 3 off the Kerala coast, as the vessel sank approximately 14.5 nautical miles from shore, beyond India's territorial waters and the coastal jurisdiction of the state. The submission in a counter-affidavit was in response to an admiralty suit instituted by the state, seeking Rs 9,531 crore in compensation for the alleged environmental and economic damage caused by the sinking of the cargo vessel on May 25. MSC contended that the presumed loss due to the shipwreck is unfounded and contrary to affidavits previously filed by both central and state govts. The company further argued that it is the central govt that has exclusive jurisdiction over the protection of marine environment. The company also claimed that the visible oil sheen was minimal and likely comprised diesel or mechanical oil. According to MSC, there was no damage to the marine environment, no marine pollution, and certainly no adverse impact on fisheries, as alleged. In support, MSC cited findings from state pollution control board which reportedly revealed no significant deviation in seawater quality. The affidavit also pointed out that the central govt did not order any fishing ban following the incident, thereby undermining the state's claims of fisheries-related losses. MSC argued that the state's fishing ban was speculative and arbitrary, and the region was already under a monsoon fishing ban. It stated that there were only 13 containers carrying hazardous goods aboard ELSA 3. All the containers are presumed to have sunk with the vessel to a depth of 54 metres, with no evidence of leakage or environmental contamination. The affidavit also challenged the HC's arrest of the vessel MSC MV Akiteta II, on the state's petition to recover the claimed compensation. MSC argued that Akiteta II and ELSA 3 are not owned by the same entity. It asserted that it is not the registered owner of either vessel. According to the affidavit, MSC Akiteta II is owned by M/s Nairne Oceanway Ltd, while ELSA 3 was under the registered ownership of ELSA 3 Maritime Inc. Any liability for the alleged losses rests solely with the registered owner.
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Take cognisance of Assam govt's financial irregularities, Congress urges HC
Congress leader Debabrata Sakia has written to Gauhati high court (HC) chief justice Ashutosh Kumar seeking suo motu cognisance of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government's alleged violations of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (AFRBM) Act, which has said has led to an escalating and unsustainable debt crisis. The Congress pointed to potential fraud and corruption. (X) He said the violations, admitted in the state's financial statements, are compounded by systemic irregularities highlighted in Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports, pointing to potential fraud and corruption. Sakia pointed to a debt-to-Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) ratio of 25.2%. The AFRBM Act mandates that the fiscal deficit should not exceed 3% of GSDP, with flexibility up to 3.5% for specific reforms, and a revenue surplus. Saikia wrote that the crisis threatens the economic stability, public welfare, and constitutional rights, necessitating urgent judicial intervention to enforce fiscal discipline and protect public interest. He added that the government's annual budget reports, CAG and Reserve Bank of India's findings reveal a pattern of fiscal mismanagement, including understatement of deficits, misclassification of expenditures, under utilisation of funds, and reliance on costly cash transfer schemes. 'Such practices infringe upon fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the violate constitutional mandates under Articles 202, 266, and 293, [dealing with the financial matters] warranting suo moto Article 226 of the Indian Constitution,' said Sakia in a letter on Tuesday, a copy of which HT has seen. Article 226 relates to the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and legal rights Saikia said the state has consistently breached limits between 2019-20 and 2024-25. He added that the fiscal deficit reached 6.50% of the GSDP in 2022-23 against a target of 3.5%. 'The escalating debt, high committed expenditures, and underutilised funds have reduced fiscal space for essential services, increased borrowing costs, and fuelled inflationary pressures, adversely affecting the right to a dignified life under Article 21,' the letter said. Saikia cited the CAG's 2022-23 State Finances Audit Report and said that the outstanding liabilities have surged by 107.34% from ₹59,425.61 crore in 2018-19 to ₹1,23,214.80 crore in 2022-23. By July 2025, the debt is estimated at ₹1,84,463 crore, based on fiscal deficit trends and net borrowings. The debt-to-GSDP ratio has risen from 19.21% in 2018-19 to 25.2% in 2024-25, approaching the AFRBM Act's 28.5% ceiling. The annual growth rate of outstanding liabilities (23.32% in 2022-23) significantly outpaces GSDP growth (12.27% annually). Saikia accused the government of cosmetic accounting practices, such as inflated budget projections and misclassifications, which obscure financial realities and facilitate potential misappropriation. He referred to the non-submission of utilisation certificates for ₹37,991.70 crore in 2022-23. Saikia blamed cash transfer schemes for exacerbating the crisis. He said the schemes lack transparent cost-benefit analyses, were declared without a vote-on-account, and violate the Constitution. Saikia sought a notice to the state government and direction to the CAG to conduct a time-bound audit within three months on 2024-25 compliance with the AFRBM Act. Saikia sought an interim stay on the announcement and implementation of new freebie or cash transfer schemes not included in the annual budget, particularly in the lead-up to the 2026 elections, to prevent fiscal strain and electoral misuse. BJP spokesperson Rupam Goaswami accused the Congress of mudslinging for headlines. 'If they had some proof, they should have filed a PIL [public interest litigation] instead of asking the high court to take suo motu cognisance.' Goaswami said the government is transparent and will continue to implement welfare schemes, taking the state's fiscal health into account.
