ANTRIKSH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED

Introduction

Antriksh Infratech Private Limited, a builder operating primarily in Delhi and its surrounding regions, has been the subject of 9 complaints, showcasing a somewhat controversial track record in the real estate market. Understanding the nature of these complaints, as well as the outcomes of legal cases involving the builder, can provide valuable insights for potential buyers.

Complaint Overview

With a total of 9 complaints lodged against Antriksh Infratech, the builder has won only 1 case while losing 8. This legal history raises concerns about the builder's practices and customer service.

Legal Case Details

• Cases Lost: 1 case
• In the sole case lost by Antriksh Infratech, the complainant claimed that a refund was not provided in accordance with the agreed-upon terms. The builder contended that the complainant was not an allottee but an investor, and therefore sought to dismiss the claim under the RERA Act. However, the authority sided with the complainant, resulting in a loss for the builder.
• Cases Won: 8 cases
• In the cases won by the builder, several common patterns emerge:
1. Refunds for Delays and Non-Delivery: A majority of the complaints involved requests for refunds due to delays in project delivery. In most cases, Antriksh sought to justify these delays as being caused by external factors, such as government policies or procedural delays. Despite these defenses, the authority frequently ordered refunds with interest.
2. Mutual Settlements: One of the cases was settled mutually between the parties, highlighting a willingness on both sides to resolve disputes amicably.
3. Interest on Refunds: In several instances where refunds were mandated, the authority also directed the payment of interest, typically around 10%-10.75% per annum, indicating a recognition of the financial impact on the complainants due to delays or non-performance.

Common Patterns in Cases

Cases Lost

The pattern in the case lost by Antriksh Infratech indicates a failure to meet contractual obligations regarding refunds, particularly relevant to clients who may not have been formally recognized as allottees of property. This suggests that potential buyers should ascertain their status and rights under the RERA Act clearly before entering into agreements with the builder.

Cases Won

Conversely, the builder's success in the majority of cases highlights the recurring theme of procedural and governmental holdups in project execution. This indicates that while the builder may be facing external challenges, it is still financially liable to refund clients for delays, which could be a red flag for potential buyers expecting timely project completion.

Conclusion

Overall, while Antriksh Infratech Private Limited has been somewhat successful in its legal defenses, the high number of complaints and losses in cases reflects a troubling pattern that potential buyers should carefully consider.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Conduct Thorough Research: Always look into a builder’s reputation. Investigate any complaints filed and their outcomes, as these can provide insights into the builder's reliability.
2. Review Contracts Carefully: Understand your rights and obligations under the terms of the contract. Make sure to clarify your status as an allottee to avoid issues in case of disputes.
3. Seek Legal Advice: Consider consulting with a legal expert familiar with real estate and RERA regulations before making any commitments.

General Tips for Selecting a Builder

• Check Licensing and Approvals: Confirm that the builder holds the necessary licenses and permits for their projects.
• Ask for References: Talk to previous customers to gauge their satisfaction and experiences.
• Evaluate Project Timelines: Make sure the building timelines offered by the builder align with your expectations and needs.

In summary, while Antriksh Infratech has moved forward with numerous projects, potential buyers should tread carefully and consider all legal, contractual, and reputational factors before proceeding.

Analysis of the cases filed against Antriksh Infratech Private Limited, where the builder lost, reveals significant insights into the common themes and disputes associated with their projects.

The cases highlight four primary themes: Delayed Possession Claims, Refund Disputes, Lack of Necessary Licenses or Approvals, and Intentional Payment Delays.

Delayed Possession Claims encompass a substantial number of cases where buyers sought refunds due to the builder's failure to deliver possession of flats on time. The builder often attributed these delays to external factors beyond their control, such as government policies and procedural delays. However, the verdicts consistently favored the buyers, indicating a lack of credibility in the builder's defenses.

Refund Disputes arose frequently, with buyers claiming refunds based on delays, lack of licenses, or simply because projects had not commenced. In many instances, the builder expressed willingness to refund amounts in installments, yet buyers sought expedited refunds with interest, which courts ultimately granted.

The Lack of Necessary Licenses or Approvals stood out as a critical issue in several cases. Buyers questioned the builder's capacity to undertake projects without requisite licenses, leading to refund requests. The builder's admissions of inability to obtain necessary approvals further highlighted their negligence in this area.

Lastly, Intentional Payment Delays reflect instances where buyers accused the builder of dragging their feet on refunds. Courts observed that the builder had accepted payments and issued receipts, yet often hesitated to return funds promptly, which led to decisions mandating interest compensation to buyers.

Common reasons for bringing cases to court included contesting payment delays, disputing blame for project stagnation, and highlighting regulatory non-compliance. Buyers were often triggered to take legal action when they felt their investments were not being taken seriously or when inordinate delays occurred without valid reasons.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to insufficient evidence to support their claims of external delays, a consistent pattern of non-compliance with licensing requirements, and a general inability to meet project timelines or return buyer funds expeditiously. Courts repeatedly expressed skepticism over the builder's intentions and operational practices, leading to a series of rulings against them.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Antriksh Infratech Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information. These cases can be grouped into several common themes reflecting the primary disputes encountered in the real estate market.

1. Investor vs. Allottee Disputes: One prevalent type of dispute involves the classification of individuals as investors rather than allottees, which affects their eligibility for relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). In the highlighted case, the complainant claimed entitlement to a refund based on the originally agreed terms; however, the builder successfully argued that the complainant was not an allottee but an investor, thus being ineligible for the relief sought.
2. Claims for Refunds: Another notable area of disagreement pertains to refund claims. Individuals seeking refunds often claim non-compliance with contractual obligations. Though the claims may appear valid at first glance, successful defenses by builders often hinge on the accurate classification of parties involved and the adherence to legal definitions outlined in RERA.
3. Regulatory Compliance under RERA: Builders frequently find themselves contesting claims related to regulatory compliance. In this instance, the ruling reinforced the need for clear understanding of roles and regulations, highlighting the necessity for all parties to be well-informed about their rights and responsibilities.

The reasons for these cases being brought to court typically revolve around disputes over penalties, claims of project delays, or disagreements related to land classification or regulatory compliance. A recurring pattern emerges where buyers and investors may incorrectly understand their rights or misclassify their relationship with builders, prompting legal action.

The builder’s victories in these cases often stem from several common factors. Key among them is the opposing party's failure to provide sufficient evidence or clarity regarding their claims. In some instances, misunderstandings of legal classifications or compliance requirements played a critical role. Builders like Antriksh Infratech have effectively defended themselves, demonstrating the importance of clarity and accurate understanding in real estate transactions.

This analysis provides valuable insights into both the builder’s reputation and the broader real estate market dynamics. It highlights that while legitimate disputes certainly exist, there are instances where claims against builders may be unfounded or exaggerated. Thus, Antriksh Infratech Private Limited seems well-positioned as a builder that can withstand legal challenges.

In conclusion, potential buyers must approach the real estate market with careful consideration. While disputes do arise, it is crucial for buyers to seek reliable information and make informed decisions regarding builders. The analysis showcases that builders like Antriksh Infratech Private Limited can successfully defend themselves against wrongful accusations, reinforcing the necessity for all parties to be diligent and informed in their dealings.