The Court observed that where the contractual documents contemplate approval by the General Body and execution of the Development Agreement, those requirements cannot be treated as mere formalities. The developer contended that all essential terms had been settled and only the formal execution of the Development Agreement remained. Godbole further pointed out that the draft Development Agreement circulated on 9 April 2026 expressly bore the endorsement "without prejudice draft for discussion purpose only", indicating that negotiations were still underway and no binding agreement had been reached. The Court further observed that every page of the draft Development Agreement forwarded on 9 April 2026 carried the endorsement "without prejudice draft for discussion purpose only", demonstrating that discussions were still in progress. According to the Court, this showed that approval of the General Body was still pending and could not be regarded as a mere ministerial act.