ESTATE REGULATOR & SARTAJ INFRABUILDS PRIVATE LIMITED

Introduction

Estate Regulator & Sartaj Infrabuilds Private Limited emerges as a prominent builder operating primarily in Rajasthan. However, their legal mindset raises eyebrows, with a significant number of complaints and court cases affecting their reputation. This article delves into legal cases involving this builder, highlighting patterns in both lost and won cases. We conclude with tips for potential buyers.

Overview of Legal Cases

The builder has faced a total of 1008 complaints, winning 952 cases and losing 56. Such a high number of cases prompts further investigation into the nature and specifics of the disputes.

Patterns in Lost Cases

1. Service of Notice Issues: A common thread in the majority of lost cases is the refusal of the promoter to accept service notices, leading to ex-parte orders. This indicates a potentially ongoing issue regarding communication and compliance with legal procedures.
2. Mandatory Refund Orders: In multiple instances, verdicts have mandated refunds to complainants, with the revocation of project registrations as a recurring theme. This indicates significant dissatisfaction among buyers regarding their transactions and the projects promised.
3. Project Registration Revocation: Many cases highlight the revocation of project registration, suggesting failures in adhering to legal requirements or commitments.

Patterns in Won Cases

1. Validity of Service of Notice: In the winning cases, the common claim by the respondent (the builder) was that the service of notice was complete, supporting the legality of the ex-parte orders.
2. Dismissal of Applications: In won cases, the applications from the promoter were often dismissed, indicating that the court found enough reason to rule in favor of the builder, possibly due to lack of evidence or merit in the complaints.
3. Debates over Compliance: The focus often shifted to whether or not the applicants had sufficiently addressed requirements or obligations of notice serving, showcasing a recurring defense strategy of promoting adherence to legal conventions.

Conclusion

From the analysis, it is evident that Estate Regulator & Sartaj Infrabuilds has a contentious legal background, predominantly marked by issues related to the service of notice and project registration. The high winning rate might suggest a strong legal standing, but the substantial number of complaints and mandatory refund orders raise serious concerns about customer satisfaction and service reliability.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Conduct Thorough Due Diligence: Before engaging in transactions, investigate the builder’s legal history and customer reviews. Look for any past issues reported by other buyers.
2. Request Documentation: Ensure you have verified project registration, clarity in paperwork, and all relevant permits are in order. This reduces the risk associated with investment in the project.
3. Clarification on Service of Notices: Understand the process for communication and ensure that all legal notices and service commitments are in writing and acknowledged.
4. Engage Legal Counsel: Before signing any agreements, consider consulting with a lawyer specializing in real estate to mitigate potential risks.

General Tips for Buyers when Selecting Any Builder

• Research Reputation: Check reviews, ratings, and feedback on various platforms.
• Visit Past Projects: If possible, visit completed projects to evaluate the quality of construction and satisfaction among existing residents.
• Understand Financial Stability: Evaluate the builder's financial background and ability to deliver on promises.
• Review Contracts with Care: Take time to read through all agreements thoroughly to avoid any unpleasant surprises down the line.

In summary, while purchasing real estate, knowledge is power. By following the above-discussed strategies and taking caution, potential buyers can safeguard their interests against unforeseen risks.

Analysis of the cases filed against the builder which it lost revealed several key insights across all the cases. The disputes primarily center around three common themes: service of notice disputes, refund claims due to non-compliance, and ex-parte orders against the promoter.

The majority of the cases involve service of notice disputes, where the applicants claim that the promoter refused to accept service of notice, leading to ex-parte orders against them. The builder's defense consistently revolved around their claim that the service of notice was complete and valid, yet the Bench ruled in favor of the complainants, indicating a significant communication or operational failure on the builder's part.

Refund claims due to non-compliance emerge as another major theme. While specific details of non-compliance vary, the common thread among these cases is the promoter's inability to meet regulatory requirements or fulfill contractual obligations, which resulted in multiple rulings for refunds to the complainants. This highlights an concerning pattern of negligence or disregard for legal standards by the builder.

The ruling of ex-parte orders against the promoter in virtually every case demonstrates a systemic issue with the builder's legal practices or operational protocols. An ex-parte order occurs when one party fails to respond or appear in court; in this context, it suggests that the builder may have underestimated the legal implications of their actions or failed to adequately address the notices served upon them.

The reasons people commonly brought cases to court revolve around the builder’s failure to comply with notices and their obligations, resulting in delays or harm to the complainants. The patterns emerging from these summaries indicate that the builder's consistent litigation stems from a combination of their own operational inefficiencies and non-compliance with regulatory frameworks.

Ultimately, the builder lost these cases primarily due to insufficient evidence to support their claims of valid notice service and compliance with regulatory requirements. The rulings against them reflect a need for the builder to reform their practices, ensuring proper communication and adherence to legal standards to prevent similar disputes in the future.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Estate Regulator & Sartaj Infrabuilds Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information.

The cases can be grouped under some common themes:

1. Service of Notices: A recurring theme in the cases is the issue of whether proper service of notice was accomplished. Many cases involved disputes where the opposing party claimed that service was not duly accepted or completed, while the builder maintained that notices were served correctly.
2. Validity of Ex-parte Orders: A significant number of cases revolved around the validity of ex-parte orders. The builder consistently contested that these orders were improperly issued, primarily due to the opposing parties' failure to accept notice service.
3. Refund Claims: Numerous cases featured complaints from buyers seeking refunds for amounts they had deposited with the builder, often tied to claims regarding project delays or mismanagement.
4. Accusations of Non-compliance: Some cases involved allegations against the builder for non-compliance with regulatory orders or municipal regulations, which were fundamentally contested by the builder's legal defense.
5. Regulatory or Legal Disputes: There were disputes about the legal standings regarding the registration of projects and the implications of the revocation of these registrations.

The reasons for these cases being brought to court commonly stemmed from dissatisfaction expressed by buyers regarding alleged project delays, service of notice issues, and refund disputes. Many buyers claimed to feel wronged, leading them to seek legal redress.

However, the builder's ability to win these cases can be attributed to common factors such as insufficient evidence presented by the opposing parties, repeat occurrences of non-compliance with legal processes from the claimants’ side, misunderstandings of project classifications, and the management of proper service of notices. The builder adeptly demonstrated that despite the claims lodged against them, they upheld compliance protocols diligently.

The analysis paints a picture of the real estate landscape where misunderstandings and accusations can lead to legal confrontations. It also indicates that builders like Estate Regulator & Sartaj Infrabuilds Private Limited have a solid defense against unfounded allegations.

For potential buyers, this analysis stresses the necessity of making informed decisions. While there may be legitimate concerns within the real estate market, evidence from these case outcomes demonstrates that builders can often successfully defend against unjust claims. Therefore, buyers are advised to approach claims with caution and seek reliable information before forming opinions about a builder's reputation.