AEROPOLIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED

Introduction

When purchasing property, especially in India's burgeoning real estate market, it is crucial to conduct thorough research on the builders involved. In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at Aeropolis Infrastructure Private Limited, a builder operating primarily in Punjab, exploring their legal history, patterns in complaints, and final assessments.

Builder Overview

• Name: Aeropolis Infrastructure Private Limited
• Number of Complaints: 99
• Cases Won: 3
• Cases Lost: 96
• States with Projects: Punjab

Legal Case Analysis

Cases Lost by Aeropolis Infrastructure

Aeropolis Infrastructure has faced significant challenges in the court of law, losing 96 out of the 99 complaints filed against them. Upon reviewing the details, several common factors emerge in these losses:

1. Failure to Deliver Possession: A recurring theme in many lost cases revolves around the builder's inability to hand over plot possession to buyers as per the agreed timelines. Complainants consistently sought refunds and interest payments due to …

Unlock Full Report & Analysis

Analysis of the cases filed against Aeropolis Infrastructure Private Limited, where the builder lost, revealed significant insights into the common themes and disputes faced by the builder. The cases can be broadly categorized into several types, including delayed possession claims, financial crunch and project delays, disputes over payment and fraud allegations, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, and penalties for project delays.

The majority of the cases revolved around delayed possession claims, where the complainants alleged that the builder had failed to hand over possession of their plots or units within the agreed-upon time frame. In these cases, the builder often attributed the delays to external factors such as financial issues, government hurdles, and force majeure circumstances. However, the authorities consistently directed the builder to pay interest for the period of delay, indicating a pattern of insufficient justification for the delays.

Financial crunch and project delays were also common themes, with the …

Unlock Full Report & Analysis

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, which it won, revealed the following information. The case summaries indicate that Aeropolis Infrastructure Private Limited frequently engaged in litigation over issues related to regulatory compliance and procedural disputes.

Within the theme of 'Regulatory Compliance', the builder's cases primarily focused on ensuring that the necessary procedures were followed by the relevant authorities during their operations. This included cases that challenged the methods used for initiating enquiries under the Act, where the builder asserted that the authorities did not adhere to proper procedures.

Furthermore, under 'Procedural Disputes', the builder often contended that the processes undertaken by the other party were flawed or inadequate. This included disagreements about the necessary actions that needed to be taken under the Act, which were essential for the builder’s ongoing projects.

The common reasons behind the builder bringing these cases to court typically pertained to a failure …

Unlock Full Report & Analysis

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Aeropolis Infrastructure Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information. These cases can be grouped under common themes, including Delayed Possession Claims and disputes over Layout Plans and Regulatory Compliance.

In the realm of Delayed Possession Claims, buyers often alleged that the builder failed to deliver possession of properties within the promised timeframes. This reflects a significant concern among buyers regarding the timeliness of project completions—an issue that is crucial in establishing trust between builders and homebuyers. Additionally, disputes surrounding Layout Plan Changes showcase tensions between the builder's discretion and the expectations set by property allottees. Buyers raised issues regarding the builder’s decisions to alter layout plans without their consent, highlighting the importance of transparency in such modifications.

The cases were primarily brought to court for reasons such as contesting perceived penalties for delays, expressing discontent over changes in …

Unlock Full Report & Analysis