Analysis of the cases filed against Angel Infra that the builder lost revealed several key themes across the disputes. The cases primarily revolved around the builder's non-compliance with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act, penalties imposed for project delays, and a striking lack of awareness regarding their legal obligations.

The RERA Act non-compliance cases highlighted the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements in real estate projects. In one notable case, the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority claimed that Angel Infra failed to submit mandatory quarterly reports and an application for the extension of time for project registration within the stipulated timeline. This raised concerns about the builder's adherence to the regulations that are established to protect the interests of home buyers and ensure transparency in the market.

Penalties for project delays were another common theme. Although the specifics of project delays were not detailed in the cases summarized, the imposition of fines suggests that Angel Infra may have faced challenges in completing projects on time, which is a recurring issue in the construction sector. Delays often prompt legal disputes, particularly when buyers are left waiting for possession of their properties.

A prevalent pattern among the cases was the builder's lack of awareness about their legal requirements. Angel Infra consistently claimed a lack of knowledge regarding the RERA Act and other regulations, which emphasizes a troubling lack of due diligence on their part. This ignorance not only necessitated legal action by regulatory authorities but also underscores a broader issue of non-compliance in the real estate sector.

The reasons people commonly brought cases against Angel Infra primarily revolved around the builder’s failure to meet regulatory standards and fulfill project commitments. Buyers and authorities alike are keenly interested in ensuring that builders operate within the legal framework, and any deviations from this expectation tend to result in legal consequences.

The conclusion that can be drawn from these cases is that Angel Infra's losses stem from a combination of insufficient evidence to support their claims of compliance and a fundamental lack of understanding of their legal obligations. The builder's repeated reliance on claims of ignorance suggests a systemic issue with their operational practices and highlights the need for ongoing education and training in real estate regulations. Overall, these disputes serve as a cautionary tale for home buyers about the importance of scrutinizing a builder's reputation and regulatory adherence before making a purchase.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Angel Infra, which it lost, reveals several insights into the builder's operational challenges and areas of contention.

Primarily, the summons can be categorized into three themes: Delayed Reporting Compliance, Penalties for Regulatory Non-Compliance, and Disputes Over Documentation Requirements.

Under the theme of Delayed Reporting Compliance, the builder faced consequences for not submitting their required quarterly reports on time. This failure not only posed a challenge to their operational transparency but also led to regulatory penalties.

Moving onto Penalties for Regulatory Non-Compliance, Angel Infra sought to contest fines imposed by various authorities, such as the RERA Authority. These penalties often stemmed from strict adherence to reporting timelines mandated by regulatory frameworks that Angel Infra failed to meet.

Lastly, the Disputes Over Documentation Requirements category highlights Angel Infra's struggles with meeting necessary documentary evidences or requirements as set forth by regulatory bodies. This often led to the builder being unable to substantiate their claims in court, resulting in unfavorable verdicts.

A common thread that emerges from these cases is that Angel Infra frequently brought these cases to court to contest penalties for late reporting or to argue situations where they believed external factors contributed to their inability to meet regulatory deadlines. Despite their attempts, it appears that the underlying issues stemmed from regulatory non-compliance, which put them at a disadvantage in legal settings.

The reasons for the builder's losses in these cases often revolved around insufficient evidence presented to counter the regulatory claims. The courts ruled against them primarily due to non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements and a failure to follow interim directions that were expected during the reporting periods. Moreover, misunderstandings related to documentation requirements and project classification rules added to their challenges in achieving favorable outcomes.

In conclusion, buyers should be wary of builders that frequently encounter regulatory challenges, as these issues can impede project timelines and overall reliability in delivering promised services.