| CIN | Not Available |
|---|---|
| Year Established | Not Available |
| Address | Not Available |
| Company Status | Not Available |
Introduction
Buying a home is one of the most significant investments one can make, and selecting the right builder is critical for ensuring a smooth and satisfying experience. In this blog, we will explore the builder 99 Marigold, analyze their legal standing based on past cases, and provide valuable insights for potential buyers.
About 99 Marigold
99 Marigold operates primarily in the state of Gujarat and has received a total of one complaint, which culminated in a legal case that the builder lost. This leads us to examine their overall performance and legal history in more detail.
Legal Case Overview
99 Marigold has faced a few challenges in the legal arena:
- Complaints: 1
- Cases Won: 0
- Cases Lost: 1
Details of the Legal Case
The legal case against 99 Marigold stemmed from an alleged violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act-2016. The complainant claimed that the builder had not prominently displayed the mandatory RERA registration number and website address in their project advertisement, which is crucial for transparency and consumer rights.
- Appellant Claim: The appellant asserted that the builder failed to comply with the RERA guidelines.
- Respondent Claim: 99 Marigold contended that the font size used for the registration number was small due to specifications set by the promoters and promised to avoid such issues in future advertisements.
- Final Verdict: Ultimately, the court found against 99 Marigold, imposing a fine of Rs. 18,000 for the violations.
Analysis of Cases
Common Factors in Cases Lost
From the information available, 99 Marigold's lost case highlights important patterns:
- Non-compliance with Regulations: The violation was linked to failing to adhere to promotional standards mandated by the RERA, indicating potential oversight or negligence in regulatory compliance.
- Public Representation: This case suggests that 99 Marigold may struggle with effectively communicating important information to consumers, which is a critical factor for any real estate project.
Common Factors in Cases Won
In this case, while 99 Marigold did not win any cases, it does have a record of being able to respond and adjust its practices post-verdict. The builder acknowledged its mistake regarding font size and stated intentions to improve compliance in the future—a crucial step towards rectifying oversight and maintaining better consumer relations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while 99 Marigold operates within a regulated framework and has faced legal scrutiny, specific shortcomings have been noted, particularly in compliance with RERA regulations. Their loss in court may raise concerns for potential buyers regarding their readiness to meet industry standards.
Tips for Potential Buyers
If you are considering purchasing from 99 Marigold:
- Verify RERA Compliance: Ensure that all information related to the project, especially the RERA registration details, are prominently displayed and accurate.
- Do Your Research: Look into customer reviews and experiences, especially any red flags regarding legal cases or complaints.
- Ask Questions: Engage directly with the builder to understand their compliance practices and how they address past issues.
General Tips for Selecting a Builder
- Check Credentials: Always check for RERA registration and verify their track record in terms of legal matters.
- Look for Transparency: Builders should willingly provide documentation and answer questions about their projects.
- Consult Existing Buyers: Reach out to those who have purchased properties from the builder to get firsthand feedback on their experiences.
- Consider Financial Stability: A financially stable builder is less likely to encounter issues that could delay project completion.
By keeping these tips in mind, buyers can make informed decisions and enhance their chances of a rewarding home-buying experience.
No builder reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Here you’ll find cases where others sued the builder, and the builder lost. We’ve included a simple summary and key takeaways from each case.
Analysis of the cases filed against the builder 99 Marigold, which it lost, revealed several key themes across the disputes. The cases primarily revolved around two critical topics: regulatory non-compliance and violations of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act-2016.
The first type of cases involved regulatory non-compliance, where the builder faced legal action due to insufficient adherence to the established regulations governing real estate projects. A prominent example of this was the failure to prominently display the RERA registration number and website address in project advertisements. This highlights a pattern of neglecting regulatory obligations, which raised concerns about the builder's commitment to transparency and compliance in its dealings.
The reasons people commonly brought cases to court against 99 Marigold primarily centered around the builder’s violations of regulatory requirements. The appellants contested the builder's actions by invoking the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act-2016 and arguing that the builder's non-compliance adversely affected the project's credibility and their interests as potential buyers. The common trigger for the builder's litigation was thus rooted in regulatory breaches rather than other facets of real estate transactions.
Examining the outcomes of these cases, it's evident that the builder lost due to a combination of factors. The primary reason was the builder's inability to meet regulatory standards, as exemplified by the inadequate display of RERA information. The builder's defense—that the font size was small due to the stipulation of the promoters—underlines another failure: namely, that of accepting responsibility and adhering to clear regulatory guidelines without qualification. Moreover, the builder's promise to not repeat such mistakes in the future suggests an acknowledgment of error and a pattern of reactive rather than proactive compliance, further jeopardizing buyer trust.
This table provides an analysis of individual cases that contributed to the summary above. Click on any row to expand and view complete details, and use the "Show More" button to load additional rows as needed.
| Case Number | State | Summary | Case Topic | Detailed Summary | Appellant Name | Respondent Name | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GJ/CMP/SM/Rajkot/23… | Gujarat | The promoter, Yogeshkumar Ghodasara, was fined fo… | ["RERA registration… | {"appellant_claim": "The appellant claimed that t… | Gujarat Real Estate… | 99 Marigold | https://drive.google.com/uc?id=11CDCQHhILDLs9oBEdQtEO7xAgBU0_S7L |