| CIN | Not Available |
|---|---|
| Year Established | Not Available |
| Address | Not Available |
| Company Status | Not Available |
Overall Case Outcomes
Introduction
In the real estate sector, understanding a builder's track record can be key to making informed purchasing decisions. This blog post focuses on ADITYA CONSTRUCTION, providing insights into their legal history and project engagements across states like Telangana and Odisha.
Overview of Legal Cases
ADITYA CONSTRUCTION has faced six complaints in total, with their legal outcomes occurring in three cases won and three cases lost, indicating a mixed record. The following sections delve into the specifics of these cases, revealing patterns and insights.
Cases Won
- Occupancy Certificate Issue: In a case where the complainant claimed that the respondents did not obtain the occupancy certificate, the builder failed to appear, leading the authority to direct them to obtain the necessary documentation within three months.
- Complaint Dismissed: Another notable win involved a case that was dismissed due to the default of the complainant.
- Flat Booking Dispute: A case …
Cases Lost by Builder (When Defending)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
Analysis of the cases filed against Aditya Construction, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes across the complaints raised by the other parties involved.
The cases can be broadly categorized into three types: occupancy certificate compliance, delayed possession claims, and communication and responsiveness disputes. The first type highlights the importance of regulatory compliance in real estate, as evidenced by a case where the builder was directed to obtain an occupancy certificate after failing to provide one, demonstrating a significant oversight in their operational practices.
Delayed possession claims seem to be another recurring theme, with one case specifically mentioning that the builder did not hand over the flat to the complainant, who was left waiting without a resolution, even after sending a legal notice. This points to potential systemic issues in the builder's project management capabilities, particularly concerning timely delivery of units to buyers.
The third theme …
Individual case details available for subscribers.
Cases Won by Builder (When Filing)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, which it won, revealed the following information. The legal disputes involving ADITYA CONSTRUCTION primarily revolve around two significant themes: 'Delayed Possession Claims' and 'Disputes over Contractual Terms'. Some of these cases involved buyers claiming that the builder failed to hand over possession of their flats, while others centered on disagreements related to the specific terms outlined in flat booking letters. Additionally, issues often resulted from legal notices sent by complainants alleging non-responsiveness from the builder, leading to further litigation. These themes highlight the diverse yet interconnected nature of residential real estate disputes.
The builder commonly brought these cases to court to contest claims made by buyers that often included penalties for delayed possession and accusations of non-compliance with contractual obligations. A significant pattern of litigation arose from buyers' misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the terms contained in flat booking letters. In particular, …
Cases Won by Builder (When Defending)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, ADITYA CONSTRUCTION, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases primarily revolve around allegations of clerical mistakes in official orders issued by the Authority, a theme that has emerged prominently in the two summaries reviewed.
In both instances, petitioners contested the orders passed by the Authority, claiming that clerical errors existed and sought rectification. This suggests a tendency among buyers or other parties to seek correction of what they perceive as errors in official communication or judgment without necessarily supporting their claims with substantial evidence.
The overall pattern of these disputes indicates that claims were often rooted in misunderstandings or disagreements over the application of law by the Authority, rather than any substantive legal failures on the part of the builder. The important takeaway here is that ADITYA CONSTRUCTION successfully defended itself against these claims by demonstrating …
Individual case details available for subscribers.
Builder Reviews
No reviews for this builder yet. Be the first one to share your thoughts!