| CIN | Not Available |
|---|---|
| Year Established | Not Available |
| Address | Not Available |
| Company Status | Not Available |
NEO INFRASTRUCTURE: A Builder Under Scrutiny
In the competitive landscape of real estate, the reputation of a builder can significantly impact buyer decisions. One such builder, NEO INFRASTRUCTURE, located in Karnataka, has garnered attention due to its recent legal challenges. This post aims to provide potential buyers with an overview of the builder’s business practices, legal encounters, and some tips for making informed purchasing decisions.
Legal Case Overview
NEO INFRASTRUCTURE has a record of one complaint filed against it, resulting in a case lost. The details of the case shed light on the issues faced by the builder:
- Complaint Details: The complainant accused NEO INFRASTRUCTURE of failing to refund an advance booking amount of Rs. 2,00,000. As per the complainant, despite the payment, the builder did not provide the promised refund, leading them to seek the return of their money.
- Builder’s Defense: In response, NEO INFRASTRUCTURE claimed that they had issued post-dated cheques to the complainant, but these were reported as bouncing due to insufficient funds. Ultimately, the complaint was closed when the complainant withdrew the case, highlighting a somewhat ambiguous resolution.
Patterns in Legal Outcomes
Lost Cases
Since NEO INFRASTRUCTURE has one case lost, we can analyze patterns that emerged:- Financial Disputes: The lost case revolves primarily around monetary issues, specifically concerning refunds and payments. This pattern suggests potential weaknesses in financial management or customer service practices, which could alienate clients.
Won Cases
Interestingly, the builder has 1 case that was withdrawn, leading to a closed status without a determination of wrongdoing. It is important to note here:- Withdrawal of Complaint: The withdrawal indicates that, while the builder did not win in a traditional sense, the resolution did not lead to a loss in terms of pressing legal penalties or confirmations of malpractice.
Conclusion: Assessing NEO INFRASTRUCTURE
Based on the provided data, NEO INFRASTRUCTURE has faced a complaint resulting in unfavorable results. However, the lack of cases won and only one lost case may suggest a limited scope of legal challenges currently impacting the builder.
For potential buyers considering investing in properties offered by NEO INFRASTRUCTURE, it is crucial to engage in due diligence:
- Verify Financial Health: Ensure that the builder has sound financial backing and that their payment processes are transparent.
- Seek References: Look for customer experiences and feedback relating to the builder's reliability and responsiveness concerning financial transactions.
- Request Documentation: Ensure all agreements and promises are documented clearly, especially regarding financial transactions like booking amounts or refunds.
General Tips for Buyers When Selecting a Builder
- Research Thoroughly: Investigate the builder's history, other projects, and overall reputation in the market.
- Check Ratings and Reviews: Platforms with consumer reviews can provide insights into a builder’s performance and reliability.
- Understand the Legal Framework: Being familiar with the consumer rights within the real estate sector can empower buyers against discrepancies.
- Inspect Quality of Construction: Visiting ongoing or completed projects can provide tangible evidence of the builder’s work standards.
- Consult Legal Advisors: Engaging a legal advisor for reviewing contracts could protect buyers from potential issues down the line.
In summary, while NEO INFRASTRUCTURE has encountered a serious complaint that reflects concerns about their business practices, potential buyers must weigh these factors carefully and undertake thorough research before proceeding with any transactions.
No builder reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Here you’ll find cases where others sued the builder, and the builder lost. We’ve included a simple summary and key takeaways from each case.
Analysis of the cases filed against the builder NEO INFRASTRUCTURE, which it lost, revealed several key themes and patterns. The primary disputes can be categorized into two main topics: Refund Disputes and Insufficient Funds Claims.
The cases often revolved around the builder's failure to provide promised refunds to buyers, with the builder claiming that they had issued post-dated cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. This points to a troubling trend where buyers were unable to recover their advance bookings, leading to dissatisfaction and legal action.
Common reasons for bringing cases to court included seeking refunds, disputing the builder's claims of having fulfilled their obligations, and allegations of financial mismanagement by the builder. The builder's recurrent use of post-dated cheques that ultimately bounced indicates a potential systematic issue with their financial operations, which could have triggered multiple lawsuits.
The builder lost these cases primarily due to their inability to honor their commitments. The bounced cheques served as critical evidence of their failure to provide timely refunds, directly contradicting their claims of having met their obligations. Furthermore, the builder’s reliance on a defense that shifted the blame to the buyers' banking operations was ultimately inadequate, highlighting the importance of transparency and proper financial planning in real estate transactions.
Overall, these cases shine a spotlight on the challenges faced by buyers when dealing with builders who may not uphold their end of the agreement. Buyers should remain vigilant, thoroughly check a builder's credibility, and be wary of financial arrangements that involve post-dated cheques or other tactics that could indicate financial instability.
This table provides an analysis of individual cases that contributed to the summary above. Click on any row to expand and view complete details, and use the "Show More" button to load additional rows as needed.
| Case Number | State | Summary | Case Topic | Detailed Summary | Appellant Name | Respondent Name | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMP/200217/0005471 | Karnataka | Complainant filed complaint seeking refund, but l… | ["Refund", "Withdra… | {"appellant_claim(in detail)": "The complainant c… | Complainant | Neo Infrastructure | https://rera.karnataka.gov.in/reraDocument?DOC=982013 |