ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM PRIVATE LIMITED

Introduction

In the world of real estate, potential buyers often face a plethora of choices when selecting their dream property. One name that has emerged in the realm of real estate is ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM Private Limited, predominantly active in Uttar Pradesh. This blog post delves into the builder's performance concerning legal disputes, providing valuable insights for potential buyers.

Legal Challenges Faced by ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM

1. Complaints Overview: The builder has faced a total of 1 complaint in a legal setting.
2. Case Outcomes: Unfortunately, the builder has not won any legal battles, having lost the sole case brought against them.

Details of the Legal Case

The primary case against ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM involved the following claims:

• Appellant Claim: The appellant alleged that the builder engaged in false and misleading advertising and failed to deliver promised loan facilities, suggesting violations of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
• Respondent Claim: In response, the builder asserted that the appellant had not made the necessary payments for the property and had not adhered to the agreed-upon terms and conditions.
• Verdict: The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, concluding that the builder had indeed violated the relevant provisions. The ruling mandated the builder to refund the appellant's deposit, including interest at a rate of MCLR+1% per annum.

Analysis of Case Outcomes

Patterns in Cases Lost

• Nature of Complaints: The single case lost by ANDROMIDA primarily revolves around misleading commitments regarding financial support and advertisements, indicating potential issues in transparency and communication with clients.
• Build Trust: This outcome suggests a need for the builder to improve on straightforward communications and fulfill advertised promises to avoid further legal disputes.

Patterns in Cases Won

• No Winning Cases: Notably, ANDROMIDA lacks winning cases in its legal history, which might raise concerns about its business practices and adherence to regulations.

Overall Assessment of ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM

Given the information on ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM, potential buyers should proceed with caution. The builder's legal history reflects serious concerns about its business conduct and customer interactions. Losing a case under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act indicates a potential risk for future investors.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Conduct Thorough Research: Before making a purchase, ensure an extensive review of the builder's past performance and legal complaints.
2. Examine Legal Standing: Check if there are any ongoing legal disputes and assess the outcome of past cases.
3. Seek Customer Testimonials: Try to find reviews or testimonies from former buyers, which could provide insights into the builder's reliability.
4. Documentation Review: Scrutinize all documentation regarding payments, agreements, and advertisements to ensure there are no misleading statements.
5. Ask Questions: Don’t hesitate to ask the builder direct questions about their legal status and commitments to transparency.

General Tips for Selecting a Builder

• Verify Credentials: Always check the builder's registration and licensing status with relevant real estate regulatory bodies.
• Inspect Past Projects: Visiting previous projects can give you a tangible sense of quality and service.
• Understand Payment Terms: Be clear on the payment structure and conditions laid out in the agreements.
• Engage Legal Assistance: It’s advisable to have a legal expert review contracts before signing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while ANDROMIDA REAL ESTATE CONSORTIUM Private Limited operates in the Uttar Pradesh real estate sector, potential buyers must navigate its past legal issues carefully. Thorough evaluation, critical questioning, and diligence are key strategies that can safeguard buyers’ interests when considering a purchase from this builder.

Analysis of the cases filed against Andromida Real Estate Consortium Private Limited, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes and patterns. The cases primarily revolve around three common topics: false advertisements and misrepresentation, failure to provide promised facilities, and non-compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The first type of case involves the builder making false and misleading advertisements. In one notable instance, the appellant claimed that the builder had advertised loan facilities that were never provided, leading to a violation of RERA regulations. This highlights a troubling pattern where builders may exaggerate or misrepresent the benefits and amenities of their projects to lure potential buyers.

The second theme centers on the builder's failure to deliver promised facilities. Closely tied to the issue of false advertising, this involves situations where buyers were led to believe they would receive certain benefits or services that were never actualized. The promised loan facilities in the aforementioned case fall into this category, demonstrating how builders might fail to fulfill their commitments, which is a major grievance among buyers.

Lastly, the cases reflect a broader issue of non-compliance with RERA regulations. The Tribunal found that the builder violated provisions of the Act, leading to a ruling in favor of the appellant. This underscores a common reason for the builder’s losses in these cases: their inability or unwillingness to adhere to the regulatory framework established to protect consumers in the real estate market.

The primary trigger for litigation in these cases seems to be the builder's failure to meet expectations and comply with regulations. Buyers commonly contest the builder’s actions when they feel misled or cheated out of promised benefits. The builder's losses typically stem from insufficient evidence to counter the claims made against them, or from clear violations of RERA that the Tribunal could not overlook.

In conclusion, the cases against Andromida Real Estate Consortium Private Limited serve as a warning to potential buyers about the dangers of false advertising and the importance of ensuring compliance with RERA. They highlight the need for diligence and careful consideration before making any real estate investment.