Analysis of the cases filed against MARG PROPERTIES Limited, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the builder's legal disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into several themes, highlighting common areas of contention.

Many of the disputes revolved around Delayed Possession Claims, where the complainants sought relief due to the incomplete construction of the project. For instance, multiple cases focused on the project 'Savithanjali,' where the builder claimed that certain blocks were structurally completed and thus excluded from registration, yet the Authority directed the builder to register those blocks as part of the project. This pattern indicates a prevalent concern among buyers regarding timely delivery and the builder’s accountability for completing projects on schedule.

Non-compliance with Regulatory Requirements emerged as another critical theme. The builder faced several cases where the complainants sought to direct the promoter to register the entire project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The builder's defense often centered around claims of structural completion and location outside planning areas, yet the verdicts consistently mandated registration, highlighting systemic issues with the builder's adherence to regulatory standards.

Disputes over Project Registration directly related to the builder’s obligations under RERA. The repeated failures to register parts of projects as required created a series of legal conflicts, all of which ended in decisions against the builder. This emphasizes a troubling trend where the builder appeared to misunderstand or neglect registration requirements, leading to legal consequences and dissatisfaction among buyers.

Refund Claims for Undelivered Flats represented a significant portion of the remaining cases. In these instances, buyers sought refunds along with interest for flats that were not delivered. The builder often offered alternative plots instead of flats, which indicates a potential mismanagement of buyer expectations and project capabilities. The outcomes of these cases further highlight the builders' unfulfilled obligations to their clients.

The reasons people commonly brought cases against MARG PROPERTIES Limited primarily revolved around the builder’s failure to fulfill promises—whether in terms of timely possession, regulatory compliance, or delivering specified units. Buyers contested penalties for delays, disputed attributions of blame for project setbacks, and argued over the builder's classification of projects and land. The patterns emerging from these cases demonstrate a consistent level of dissatisfaction with the builder's performance and a lack of transparency in dealing with buyers’ expectations.

The builder lost these cases predominantly due to insufficient evidence to support their claims of completion or compliance, failure to adhere to the regulatory requirements as mandated by RERA, and misunderstandings regarding project and land classification. The verdicts reflect a need for the builder to reassess their operational practices, ensure thorough compliance with legal standards, and prioritize buyer satisfaction to mitigate future legal disputes.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder MARG PROPERTIES Limited, which it lost, reveals significant insights into the types of disputes that frequently arose. These cases can be grouped into several common themes: 'Project Registration Disputes', 'Incomplete Project Claims', 'Regulatory Non-compliance', and 'Structural Stability Issues'. Each of these themes sheds light on specific areas where the builder faced challenges and highlights potential pitfalls for buyers considering properties from this builder.

The theme of 'Project Registration Disputes' focused on disagreements regarding whether projects needed to be registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). In the cases examined, the builder often claimed that projects were completed, thereby exempting them from registration. However, the opposing parties contended that these projects were still ongoing and did require registration, leading to unfavorable verdicts for the builder.

Additionally, within 'Incomplete Project Claims', the builder's frequent assertion that projects were finished was met with pushback from respondents who established that the projects remained uncompleted. These assertions indicate a pattern of the builder attempting to sidestep regulatory requirements by claiming projects were done, ultimately resulting in legal defeat.

The builder often brought cases to court to challenge penalties imposed due to project delays, dispute claims of non-compliance, or clear regulatory obligations. A notable trigger for the builder’s litigation seemed to be navigating the complexities of meeting ongoing legal and regulatory standards while simultaneously managing constructible timelines.

The reasons for losing these cases were often rooted in insufficient evidence provided by the builder to support its claims. In many instances, failure to adhere to legal requirements such as registering projects with RERA or obtaining required structural stability certifications led the tribunal to side with the complaining party. The builder's lack of compliance with local regulations and procedures was a common theme, ultimately resulting in unfavorable rulings. This poor adherence to regulations indicates a significant oversight on the builder's part, posing risks for potential buyers considering their projects.

Overall, the analysis of these cases offers critical insights into the operational and regulatory challenges faced by MARG PROPERTIES Limited, serving as a cautionary tale for prospective buyers to thoroughly investigate the builder’s compliance with legal standards before committing to a purchase.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, MARG PROPERTIES Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information.

There are a few key recurring themes observed in these cases, primarily revolving around commission shopping in complaints, multiple forum filings, and the tendency of appellants to file complaints without properly withdrawing previous claims, particularly in the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC).

The main reasons for these cases being brought to court often included complaints about RERA filings without appropriate withdrawal of prior claims and the builders' alleged engagement in 'commission shopping.' This suggests a pattern where buyers or opposing parties may feel dissatisfied and seek remedies across multiple platforms, leading to complex legal disputes.

Despite the gravity of these claims, MARG PROPERTIES Limited successfully defended itself in these instances. The verdicts were dismissed primarily due to the opposing parties' failure to provide sufficient evidence that justified their claims. In addition, many cases highlighted non-compliance with procedural requirements, such as the necessity to withdraw earlier complaints before raising new ones, which ultimately benefitted the builder's position.

These trends highlight a broader insight into the builder's reputation and how it navigates legal challenges. It appears that MARG PROPERTIES Limited has built a strong track record in defending itself against accusations that may stem from buyer grievances, misunderstandings, or exaggerations of the issues at hand. This situation underscores the reality that accusations can sometimes be unfounded, leading to unnecessary litigation.

For potential buyers, this analysis serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of researching and vetting claims before making judgments about builders. While legitimate disputes do exist within the real estate market, the outcomes of these cases suggest that builders like MARG PROPERTIES Limited are often well-prepared to defend against such claims. It is crucial for buyers to approach claims against builders with a discerning eye and to seek out reliable information to avoid rushing to conclusions based on incomplete or incorrect narratives.