Analysis of the cases filed against Dhoot Infrastructure Projects Limited, where the builder lost, revealed several key themes and patterns across the disputes. The cases primarily revolved around two main topics: delayed possession claims and claims related to the rectification or clarification of orders.

The majority of the cases (six out of six) involved delayed possession claims, where the complainants sought compensation for the builder's failure to deliver properties on time. These claims often included a request for delayed possession charges along with the prescribed rate of interest. The builder's defense typically hinged on claims that their applications for rectification were valid, stating they were filed for clarification rather than to address errors or mistakes in the orders. However, the authority consistently ruled in favor of the complainants, indicating that the builder's applications did not meet the necessary criteria for rectification as outlined in the relevant legislation.

A pattern emerges from these summaries: the common trigger for litigation in these cases was the builder's inability to fulfill their contractual obligations regarding timely project completion. Homebuyers were not only expecting prompt possession of their properties, but they were also entitled to compensation for the delays, which further fueled the disputes.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to a misunderstanding of the legal framework surrounding rectification applications. While they claimed their applications were valid and sought only clarification, the ruling bodies distinguished between applications filed for genuine rectification purposes and those that were merely seeking to obscure or delay the acknowledgment of delays. Insufficient evidence to support their claims of valid rectification needs, combined with a consistent failure to meet project timelines, resulted in the builder's defeat in each case.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance for builders to adhere to timelines and to be cognizant of the legal implications of delayed possession. For potential buyers, this serves as a cautionary tale about the risks associated with builders who have unresolved legal disputes, particularly when those disputes center around delayed possession and inadequate legal compliance.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Dhoot Infrastructure Projects Limited, which it lost, revealed several recurring themes.

The primary disputes can be grouped into three major categories: Payment Disputes, Pre-deposit Non-compliance, and Regulatory Issues.

• 1. Payment Disputes: These cases involved the builder claiming that they had made the necessary payments as required, but the respondents consistently disputed these claims. In such disputes, the core of the disagreement often rested on the evidence of payment and whether the payments met the obligations outlined in the contracts. This recurring pattern indicates potential issues with record-keeping or miscommunication between the parties involved.
• 2. Pre-deposit Non-compliance: A notable reason leading to dismissals was the builder’s failure to comply with the required pre-deposit as mandated by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This theme highlights a crucial regulatory requirement that the builder couldn't meet, leading to automatic dismissal of their appeals. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when entering litigation.
• 3. Regulatory Issues: The builder often faced challenges regarding their adherence to regulations stipulated by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Non-compliance with such regulations typically results in unfavorable outcomes in legal disputes. The builder's inability to align its practices with regulatory expectations further underscores the broader implications of compliance in the real estate sector.

Commonly, the builder brought cases to court to contest penalties, assert claims related to payments, or challenge decisions that they believed were misattributed to them, particularly concerning project delays and other liabilities. However, a recurrent theme in these cases is the inadequate evidence presented to substantiate their claims, particularly regarding payment proof and adherence to compliance measures.

The reasons for the builder losing these cases primarily hinged on insufficient evidence supporting their claims and their overwhelming non-compliance with legal obligations, particularly relating to pre-deposit requirements. The recurring inability to meet such crucial legal standards, paired with failures to provide adequate proof of payment or procedural adherence, resulted in their legal defeats. This analysis serves as a cautionary tale for buyers and stakeholders in the real estate sector—highlighting the importance of thorough documentation, understanding regulatory compliance, and being aware of legal liabilities.