Analysis of the cases filed against Arihant Enterprise, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the builder's operational practices and compliance with regulatory requirements. The cases can be broadly categorized into several themes, highlighting the primary disputes faced by the builder.

One of the most notable themes was the Failure to Provide Promised Facilities. In several instances, plaintiffs claimed that the builder did not deliver promised amenities such as a clubhouse, which is a critical aspect of community living. The builder's defense often revolved around their assertion that facilities were provided as per the agreement, yet the verdicts consistently favored the plaintiffs, emphasizing the need for builders to adhere to their commitments.

Non-Compliance with Completion Certificate Requirements emerged as another significant theme. Numerous cases centered around the builder's failure to obtain necessary completion certificates from competent authorities. The builder's argument that individual units within projects might not require such certificates was repeatedly rejected by the authorities, leading to penalties and a recognition that the projects were not completed in accordance with legal standards.

Disputes over Maintenance Charges also stood out, with plaintiffs alleging excessive charges and denial of access to facilities for which they had paid. The builder's counterclaims often cited late payment and procedural non-compliance from plaintiffs, but ultimately, the decisions highlighted issues in the builder's management and service delivery.

The Inadequate Provision of Civic Amenities was a recurring concern, particularly in the case of the Prime Ville project, where basic necessities like water supply and sewage facilities were found lacking. The builder's reliance on plotted schemes and agreements with allottees did not mitigate their responsibility to ensure proper provisioning of these essential services.

Common triggers for litigation in these cases primarily revolved around the builder's failure to meet contractual obligations, non-compliance with legal requirements, and disputes over financial charges. The builder's losses in these cases often stemmed from insufficient evidence to support their claims, a lack of compliance with regulatory frameworks, and a fundamental misunderstanding of their responsibilities regarding project completion and facility provisioning.

Overall, this analysis underscores the importance for potential buyers to conduct thorough research into a builder's track record, particularly regarding their compliance with legal requirements and their history of fulfilling promises made to homeowners.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, ARIHANT ENTERPRISE, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases can be grouped into several common themes, each highlighting different aspects of disputes that arose between the builder and various parties involved.

Firstly, we observe cases relating to 'Complaints Settlement', wherein disputes such as the refund of amounts for allocated flats were amicably resolved, indicating that in some instances, direct negotiations between the builder and complainants can lead to satisfactory outcomes for both parties.

Secondly, 'Penalties for Compliance Failures' has emerged as a recurring theme wherein the builder contested the validity of penalties imposed by authorities for purported violations of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In these cases, the builder argued that penalties were unwarranted, particularly when they had adhered to prior administrative directions. The consistent dismissal of the authority's rectification applications in these cases points towards the builder's effective defense against claims of non-compliance.

Furthermore, disputes regarding 'Disputes over QPR Submission' surfaced in several cases, where claims were made by authorities that the builders failed to submit Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) in a timely manner. However, the builder was able to demonstrate that the required submissions had been made before the hearings, leading to the authorities accepting the reports and thereby discharging notices against the builders. This highlights a potential communication gap that can occur in regulatory practices.

Finally, there were instances that involved 'Refund and Financial Claims' that were dismissed as being infructuous or settled outside of court. Such resolutions affirm that not all disputes require lengthy legal proceedings, reinforcing the idea that many claims can be resolved amicably.

The reasons behind these cases stem from penalties being contested, claims of project delays, and disagreements surrounding compliance with regulations. Common patterns reveal that when regulatory bodies or buyers filed complaints, they often lacked sufficient evidence to support their claims against ARIHANT ENTERPRISE.

The builder's success in these cases can be attributed to several factors, including the opposing parties' failure to comply with legal or regulatory requirements, misunderstandings about project classifications, or lack of support for their allegations. This demonstrates ARIHANT ENTERPRISE's capability to mount a robust defense against claims that may be misleading or unfounded.

This analysis provides valuable insights into the builder's reputation and the overarching dynamics in the real estate market. It is noteworthy that claims made against builders can occasionally be skewed or exaggerated, leading to unnecessary legal confrontations. ARIHANT ENTERPRISE has showcased a commendable track record of defending itself against such claims, which is an encouraging sign for potential buyers.

For prospective buyers, this analysis serves as a significant reminder to conduct thorough due diligence before drawing conclusions about a builder's character. While the real estate market has its share of legitimate disputes, the evidence suggests that builders like ARIHANT ENTERPRISE can effectively protect themselves against unjust accusations. Buyers are advised to seek out comprehensive and verified information before forming judgments about a builder's reputation.