Analysis of the cases filed against Manglam Build Developers Limited, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes and patterns. The primary disputes can be categorized into two main topics: Penalties for Project Delays and Non-compliance with Municipal Orders.

The cases often involved the builder facing penalties due to delays in project completion. For instance, in one significant case, the respondent was penalized for not submitting a completion certificate and for failing to apply for an extension, which led to a penalty of Rs 20,000. This highlights a common trigger for litigation, where builders may contest penalties imposed for delays that they often attribute to other factors beyond their control.

A prevalent reason for the builder’s losses in these cases is their non-compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Failing to secure proper documentation, such as completion certificates, reflects a broader issue of neglecting regulatory obligations. This non-compliance not only incurs financial penalties but also raises concerns about the builder's operational integrity and commitment to fulfilling project requirements on time.

In summary, the cases against Manglam Build Developers Limited primarily revolve around delays and the builder’s failure to adhere to necessary procedures. Buyers should take note of these patterns, as they indicate potential risks regarding reliability and accountability in the builder's projects.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases can be primarily grouped into a few common themes: Project Registration Disputes, Definition of Ongoing Projects, and Regulatory Compliance. These topics encapsulate the essence of the claims made against Manglam Build Developers Limited.

1. Project Registration Disputes: Several cases were centered around claims that the builder had not registered their projects as mandated by law. The opposing parties alleged non-compliance with registration requirements, arguing that they were entitled to certain protections under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. However, the builder successfully demonstrated that their projects did not fall under the legal definitions necessitating registration, resulting in the courts dismissing these claims.
2. Definition of Ongoing Projects: Another recurrent theme was the distinction of whether the projects in question were classified as ongoing. This classification was pivotal, as ongoing projects are subject to stricter regulations and obligations under the Act. In several cases, the builder argued and won on the basis that the projects being challenged did not meet the criteria set forth in regulatory guidelines. The verdicts in these instances reinforced the builder's position that their projects were not ongoing in the legal context, thus negating the requirements for compliance.
3. Regulatory Compliance: The builders faced accusations regarding compliance with various municipal and regulatory mandates. Opponents claimed the builder failed to adhere to necessary statutes and guidelines. Nonetheless, the defense established that prior rulings or clarifications from authorities cleared their projects of such obligations. The courts validated these points, leading to dismissals of the regulatory complaints against the builder.

The reasons for these cases being brought to court include contesting penalties for registration failures, claims of non-compliant projects, and general disputes regarding project classification. It is apparent from the summaries that buyers and regulatory bodies may have misunderstood or misapplied the legal definitions tied to their claims, leading to disputes that the builder effectively contested.

The consistent victory for Manglam Build Developers Limited in these cases highlights significant factors that played in their favor. Primarily, they were able to showcase insufficient evidence from the opposing parties and notably proved that many allegations stemmed from misinterpretations of the complex regulatory framework governing real estate projects. In several instances, the builder’s arguments relied on established precedents which corroborated their defense against seemingly exaggerated or unfounded accusations.

This analysis reflects positively on the builder’s reputation within the real estate market. While it is crucial for buyers to be vigilant and aware of potential issues, the outcomes of these cases suggest that Manglam Build Developers Limited has a robust framework to manage legal challenges and defend against erroneous claims. This suggests a level of professionalism and commitment to compliance within their operations.

For potential buyers, it is essential to approach claims made against builders with a discerning mind. While there are legitimate issues in the real estate market, the victories of Manglam Build Developers Limited indicate that accusations can sometimes be driven by misunderstandings or misapplications of law. Therefore, buyers should seek reliable information and make informed decisions before forming opinions about a builder's reputation. In pursuing real estate investments, it is vital to ensure one is adequately informed to differentiate between valid concerns and unfounded claims.