which makes a specific reference to a written agreement for sale. It is submitted that Section 13 is in the context of a prohibition against the promoter from accepting the sum more than 10% of the cost of apartment, without first entering into an agreement for sale. It is thus submitted that the object of Section 13 is limited and Section 13 cannot be used or relied upon to reckon the definition of an agreement for sale as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act of 2016. It is submitted that there are several sections such as Section 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 31, 32 and 71 which refer to the rights of the allottees which is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act of 2016 and none of these provisions set out a requirement of a formal written agreement for sale in order to enable the allottees to enforce the rights. It is submitted that Section 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act of 2016, 1963 (‘MOFA’, for short) also casts an obligation on the promoter to refund amount received with interest, in the event of failure to give possession in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is submitted that Section 18 of the Act of 2016 is similar to Section 8 of MOFA. Reliance is placed on the decision in G. Swaminathan Vs. Shivram Co-operative Housing Society and Ors.29 and Neena Sudarshan Wadia Vs. M/s. Venus Enterprises30 in order to submit that in similar provisions under the
