Analysis of the cases filed against Antevorta Developers Private Limited, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes and patterns across the disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into common themes, each highlighting a unique aspect of the builder's litigation history.

One of the most prevalent themes is Delayed Possession Claims. In numerous cases, the plaintiffs claimed that the builder had failed to deliver possession of their flats within the stipulated time. This theme overlaps with Refund Claims Due to Incomplete Projects, as many plaintiffs sought refunds along with interest due to the delays. The builder's consistent defense in these cases was that there was no delay or that the plaintiffs had not adhered to the payment schedule, indicating a systemic issue in communication or project management.

Amenities and Interest Disputes also stand out, with plaintiffs often claiming that they were charged interest unfairly or that the promised amenities were not provided. This suggests that the builder may have had issues with fulfilling their commitments, which is a critical factor in real estate transactions.

The Compliance with Agreement Terms theme is crucial, as both parties frequently accused each other of non-compliance with the agreed-upon terms. This highlights a significant concern: when parties do not uphold their end of the bargain, it creates fertile ground for disputes.

Lastly, Jurisdictional Disputes emerged in several cases, where the builder or the plaintiffs questioned the jurisdiction of the adjudicating bodies. This reflects a broader issue of clarity and understanding regarding legal jurisdictions in real estate, which can lead to significant delays and complications.

The common triggers for litigation in these cases primarily revolve around the builder's failure to meet project timelines and fulfill their commitments. Plaintiffs were often driven to seek refunds or damages due to the delayed possession of their properties and disputes over required amenities.

The builder lost these cases predominantly due to a combination of factors: insufficient evidence to support their claims of timely completion, failure to comply with the agreed-upon terms, and lack of clarity in their communications regarding project delivery timelines and expectations. Furthermore, jurisdictional misunderstandings resulted in several cases being remanded for fresh consideration, highlighting an underlying issue with legal compliance and procedural knowledge within the company.

In conclusion, prospective buyers should approach transactions with Antevorta Developers Private Limited with caution. It is essential to thoroughly review the terms of the agreement, understand the timelines for project completion, and be aware of the amenities that are promised. Buyers should also consider the legal implications and their rights in the event of delays or disputes. A well-informed decision can mitigate risks associated with property investment.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, ANTEVORTA DEVELOPERS Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases can be grouped under several recurring themes, reflecting the primary types of disputes that arose between the builder and the complainants.

1. Delayed Possession Claims: Many complaints centered around allegations of delayed possession of apartments. In these cases, the builder consistently defended itself by demonstrating that there was no delay in possession, often due to unpaid dues from buyers or completion within the stipulated time.
2. Refund Claims for Non-existent Projects: Several cases involved claims for refunds related to supposed projects that did not exist, with the builder successfully arguing that the complainants were not clients of any such project, thus dismissing the complaints as not maintainable. This indicates a significant misunderstanding on the purchasers' part.
3. Claims of Project Incompletion: Disputes also occurred over claims of construction delays. In various cases, the builder was able to demonstrate that projects were completed on schedule, leading to dismissals of refund requests.
4. Pending Litigation Disclosure Disputes: A notable number of complaints pertained to the allegation that the builder did not disclose pending litigation, which supposedly affected project timelines. The builder was able to prove that there were no such impediments, maintaining that it had obtained the necessary occupancy certificates.
5. Quality of Construction Complaints: Complaints regarding the quality of flats constructed were also recorded. The builder refuted these claims by presenting evidence that the projects were completed within the specified time, and the complainants failed to substantiate their claims of substandard quality.

The reasons for these complaints often stemmed from buyers contesting perceived penalties, claims of project delays, and misunderstandings regarding regulatory compliance or the builder's obligations. Notably, many complaints appeared to reflect either a lack of understanding of the legal agreements in place or were based on misconceptions of the builder's actions.

The common reasons the builder won these cases include insufficient evidence provided by the opposing parties, non-compliance with legal standards required to initiate claims, and clear documentation demonstrating that the builder met all statutory obligations. This underscores the importance of robust evidence in real estate disputes. Moreover, it highlights how buyers can sometimes make exaggerated claims, resulting in legal disputes that the builder can often refute effectively.

This analysis paints a picture of ANTEVORTA DEVELOPERS Private Limited as a builder committed to legal compliance and project integrity, able to defend effectively against unjust claims. For potential buyers, this serves as a critical reminder to conduct thorough research and verify claims before forming opinions about builders. Buyers should remain vigilant about the legitimacy of complaints and consult reliable sources to ensure informed decisions. While legitimate disputes exist, the ability of builders like ANTEVORTA to navigate litigation successfully indicates their resilience and reliability in the competitive real estate market.