CALENDULA VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED

A Closer Look at CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited: Understanding Their Legal Standing

When exploring potential builders for your next home or investment, it’s crucial to understand their track record, especially in terms of legal conflicts. In this post, we will take a detailed look at CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited, analyzing their legal history and providing insights for potential buyers.

Overview of CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited

CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited is a builder operating in the state of Haryana. However, the company has faced some challenges, notably in their legal dealings, which could be significant for prospective buyers considering their projects.

Legal History

As per the available data, CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited has received one complaint; there are no recorded cases won, while they have lost one legal case. Here is a look at the specifics of the case:

1. Case Details:
   - Appellant's Claim: The complainant sought restoration of the complaint due to unavoidable circumstances.
   - Respondent's Claim: The builder, or respondent, stated that the matter is already pending before the Hon’ble NCDRC, rendering it not maintainable before this authority.
   - Final Verdict: The application for restoration of the complaint was declined.

Analysis of Legal Trends

Patterns in Lost Cases

The single case that CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited lost provides some insights:

• Pending Issues: The builder's claim that the matter was already pending in another forum indicates that they might not have effectively managed or communicated their legal responsibilities. This could reflect a pattern of overlooking ongoing issues that may come back to affect their credibility.
• Lack of Restoration: The denial of the restoration application suggests that the builder was unsuccessful in addressing the points raised by the complainant, which could indicate potential shortcomings in customer service or dispute resolution.

Patterns in Won Cases

Currently, there are no cases won by CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited, which highlights an area of concern. A lack of wins can suggest challenges in addressing client complaints or navigating legal processes effectively.

Conclusion

In summary, CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited has faced legal challenges that should not be ignored. With one lost case and no victories, potential buyers might find this situation alarming. It's advisable for buyers to approach potential investments with a cautious mindset.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Research Thoroughly: Investigate the builder’s reputation and any legal disputes they may have faced. Look for reviews and testimonials from previous customers.
2. Ask for Documentation: Ensure that all necessary documents regarding the property and any legal matters are provided upfront. This can help you understand the builder’s standing better.
3. Consult Legal Professionals: If you have concerns, consulting with real estate attorneys can help in evaluating the risks associated with purchasing from CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited.

General Tips When Selecting Any Builder

• Check for Licenses and Certifications: Ensure the builder has the necessary licenses and adheres to local building regulations.
• Visit Completed Projects: If possible, visit the builder’s completed projects to assess the quality of work firsthand.
• Look for Transparency: A reputable builder should be willing to share information openly, including project timelines, budgets, and terms of sale.

By taking these precautions and understanding the implications of a builder's legal track record, buyers can make more informed decisions in their property investments.

The analysis of the cases filed by CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited, which it lost, reveals important insights into the builder's legal challenges and the nature of disputes that arose during litigation.

The cases can primarily be grouped into the following themes. First, there are issues related to the Restoration of Complaints, where it becomes evident that the builder often sought to revive cases that were previously dismissed or were pending before other arbitration bodies, specifically the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This indicates a potential lack of clarity or understanding regarding procedural norms when multiple legal forums are involved.

Another theme that emerges is the NCDRC Proceedings, where the builder faced challenges pertaining to ongoing cases that were already under the jurisdiction of the NCDRC. This situation underscores a common pattern wherein the builder may have over-relied on pursuing restoration while disregarding active processes already in motion in higher courts.

The Jurisdictional Challenges serve as a critical theme as well, reflecting the builder's struggle with ensuring that its cases were appropriately filed within the correct legal framework. In instances where the respondent claimed jurisdictional issues, it highlights a tendency for the builder to misjudge the appropriate legal venue for their claims.

The common reasons for the builder bringing cases to court appear to stem from a desire to contest decisions made by regulatory bodies or other parties that they believe had resulted in project delays or adverse decisions. Frequently, the builder sought to argue for the restoration of complaints on the grounds of what they deemed unavoidable circumstances, reflecting a defensive mechanism against imposed penalties and decisions that they felt were unjust.

However, the builder's record in these disputes is characterized by a series of losses, often attributed to several key deficiencies. One recurring issue appears to be insufficient evidence to support their claims during litigation, particularly regarding their assertions about the circumstances that warranted restoration. Additionally, non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements, especially in instances where the matters had been properly adjudicated in other legal contexts, likely contributed to their defeat. The failure to follow interim directions from higher authorities has also been a significant factor, revealing a lack of adherence to legal protocols that could have otherwise salvaged their cases.

Overall, the cases shed light on a builder grappling with legal intricacies and missteps in jurisdictional understanding, with implications for potential buyers considering engagement with CALENDULA VANIJYA Private Limited. It's pertinent for buyers to be aware of such historical legal battles, as they may reflect on the builder’s reliability and credibility in future dealings.