Analysis of the cases filed against OM Developers, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes across the various disputes. The cases primarily revolve around issues of compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and the obligations imposed on builders under this legislation.

The most common theme among the cases is the builder's Failure to Submit Quarterly Reports. In multiple instances, the authority found that OM Developers had not adhered to the requirement of filing quarterly project reports on the RERA web portal. This reflects a broader pattern of non-compliance with regulatory obligations, which is a major concern for prospective buyers who rely on transparency in the real estate market.

Non-Compliance with RERA Instructions is another significant theme. The builder was penalized for violating specific instructions regarding project reporting and disclosure. The reasons provided for this non-compliance varied, including technical issues and lack of awareness, highlighting systemic issues within the company's operations and compliance practices.

Inadequate Project Disclosure also emerges as a crucial theme. In one case, the builder was penalized for inadequate disclosure on project hoardings, specifically for not displaying the RERA registration number as mandated by the regulations. This underscores the importance of clear communication in the real estate sector and the need for builders to fulfill their obligations in this regard.

Lastly, Violations of the RERA Act stands out as a overarching theme that encapsulates many of the specific issues noted in the cases. The penalties imposed on OM Developers were primarily due to its failure to meet various requirements outlined in the RERA Act, leading to a series of legal defeats.

The common triggers for litigation in these cases primarily revolved around the builder's failure to fulfill regulatory requirements and provide necessary disclosures. People brought cases to court largely due to the builder’s non-compliance, which raises important questions about the company's commitment to transparency and accountability.

The reasons for OM Developers' losses in these cases are strikingly similar. In each instance, the builder's defense was undermined by insufficient evidence of compliance, failure to follow regulatory instructions, and a lack of transparency. These patterns suggest significant operational and procedural shortcomings within the company, which prospective buyers should be acutely aware of before making any investment decisions.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder OM DEVELOPERS, which it lost, reveals a consistent pattern regarding their disputes primarily focused on non-compliance with reporting obligations. The cases can be grouped into several key themes. Firstly, there were significant issues related to 'Non-compliance with Reporting Obligations,' where the builder failed to submit required quarterly reports in a timely manner. The repercussions of this non-compliance are further emphasized under themes such as 'Penalties for Failure to File' and 'Repeated Non-compliance Despite Reminders,' indicating that despite multiple notifications, the builder did not rectify their reporting delays. Additionally, cases mentioned 'Willful Negligence in Regulatory Compliance' which points towards the perception of intent behind the builder's failure to act.

The builder commonly brought these cases to court to contest penalties resulting from their late or nonexistent submissions, often claiming various reasons for the delays. This illustrates a pattern where OM DEVELOPERS sought to deflect accountability for their regulatory obligations, which leads to a broader discussion about the management and operational practices within the company. The common triggers for these disputes often stemmed from the need to secure extensions or reductions in penalties that stemmed from their own failure to adhere to stipulated timelines.

The reasons for OM DEVELOPERS' losses across these proceedings paint a revealing picture. The consistent acceptance of the respondents' claims suggests a lack of sufficient evidence and support for its defenses. Additionally, the findings imply that the builder did not properly comply with legal or regulatory requirements, often failing to act on interim directions or reminders issued by relevant authorities. This repeated theme of non-compliance underscores a potential systemic issue within the builder's practices, which, if not addressed, could jeopardize their reliability and reputation in the real estate market.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, OM DEVELOPERS, which it won, revealed the following information. The disputes primarily revolved around regulatory compliance issues, specifically concerning the timely submission of reports required under the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act. Among the notable themes identified, there are instances of disagreements over reporting obligations where the builder was accused of late submissions. Additionally, the cases also touched on penalties for minor infractions, highlighting a pattern where the builder faced scrutiny for perceived failures that were ultimately seen as non-critical.

The common reasons for these litigations appeared to revolve around contesting penalties imposed for alleged non-compliance with RERA regulations. In these cases, OM DEVELOPERS often sought to challenge claims regarding project delays or regulatory failures attributed to circumstances beyond their control. A frequent trigger for these cases seemed to be the claims from authorities or external parties who accused the builder of failing to uphold procedural norms, which the builder disputed as misunderstandings or minor oversights.

The successful outcomes of these cases can largely be attributed to two factors: insufficient evidence from opposing parties and a clear demonstration of the builder's proactive approach to compliance. In instances where the allegations were based on misinterpretations or failures to adhere to interim procedures by the authorities, OM DEVELOPERS was able to mount a robust defense. This indicates that the builder was not only aware of their obligations but also prepared to contest claims that, by their nature, were exaggerated or unfounded.

This analysis reflects positively on OM DEVELOPERS' reputation in the real estate landscape, showcasing their ability to navigate disputes while maintaining a commendable compliance record. It underscores an unfortunate reality in the market: buyers and regulatory bodies can sometimes make hasty or misguided accusations against builders, leading to unnecessary legal challenges. OM DEVELOPERS, through these victories, proves their competence in defending their integrity against such claims.

For potential buyers, the insight gathered from these cases emphasizes the significance of conducting thorough research before concluding a builder's reliability or reputation based on singular complaints. While legitimate issues can arise in real estate transactions, it is crucial to recognize that builders like OM DEVELOPERS often face unwarranted accusations. Thus, a careful consideration of each case and factual evidence is essential for buyers in their decision-making journey. Informed perspectives will enable homebuyers to navigate the market with confidence, distinguishing between valid concerns and unfounded accusations against reputable builders.