| CIN | Not Available |
|---|---|
| Year Established | Not Available |
| Address | Not Available |
| Company Status | Not Available |
Introduction
In the realm of real estate, selecting the right builder for your next home is a vital decision. One such builder to consider is OM SAI INFRA, based in Maharashtra. In this blog, we will delve into the company’s performance through its legal challenges, examining complaints lodged against it, the outcomes of these cases, and what this means for potential customers.
Overview of OM SAI INFRA
OM SAI INFRA has encountered a total of four complaints, with an impressive track record of winning all four cases. This speaks volumes about the company’s ability to navigate legal challenges effectively. Importantly, they have not lost any cases to date, which is a strong indicator of their operational integrity.
Legal Case Details
Cases Won by the Builder
OM SAI INFRA has successfully filed and won 1 case which revolved around a procedural amendment. Here’s a closer look:
- Appellant Claim: The applicants sought to amend their application.
- Respondent Claim: The builder had no objections to the proposed amendment.
- Final Verdict: The request for amendment was granted, allowing the applicants two weeks to submit the revised application.
This case highlights the builder's willingness to cooperate and resolve issues amicably.
Cases Lost by the Builder
Interestingly, despite not losing any cases themselves, OM SAI INFRA has faced three incidents where the outcomes were not favorable to the appellants. Here’s a summary:
- Case 1: Appellants requested a refund for a flat purchase, claiming delays in possession. The tribunal deemed the case as outside of RERA jurisdiction as the transaction was considered a money lending agreement.
- Case 2 and 3: Both cases mirrored the first, where appellants sought refunds by claiming they had lent money instead of purchasing a property. Again, the tribunal held that these transactions were classified as money lending, thus falling outside RERA’s scope.
Analysis of Legal Patterns
Upon reviewing the legal cases, several patterns emerge:
- Commonality in Lost Cases: A significant factor in the cases that were adjudicated against the appellants is the classification of transactions as money lending rather than sales. This legal precedent indicates that a lack of clear contractual agreements can lead to complications under regulatory frameworks.
- Successful Case Dynamics: The successful case indicates a procedural correction rather than a dispute over substantive issues, suggesting that OM SAI INFRA is adept at resolving minor legal amendments effectively.
Conclusion
Based on the available data, OM SAI INFRA demonstrates a solid legal grounding, with an impressive record of case wins and no losses to report. Potential buyers should feel encouraged by the builder’s proactive approach in handling legal affairs. However, the patterns evident in prior complaints urge future homeowners to ensure clarity in transaction terms to avoid potential disputes.
Tips for Potential Buyers
- Conduct Thorough Research: Look beyond the builder’s wins and analyze any complaints, patterns, and customer reviews.
- Understand Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with the RERA regulations and how they apply to your purchase.
- Document Everything: Maintain clear and precise documentation of all agreements and communications to safeguard your interests.
General Tips for Selecting Any Builder
- Check Legal History: Look for any prior complaints or lawsuits against the builder.
- Visit Previous Projects: Inspect their completed projects to gauge quality and customer satisfaction.
- Seek Recommendations: Word-of-mouth referrals can provide additional insight into a builder’s reputation and reliability.
In conclusion, while OM SAI INFRA presents a generally favorable profile, prospective buyers should always proceed with due diligence.
No builder reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Here you’ll find cases where the builder sued others and won. We’ve included a summary and key insights from each case.
An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, which it won, revealed the following information. The cases focused primarily on application amendments and the processes involved in filing them.
In the case summarized, the builder initiated the process by seeking an amendment to their application, which was met with no objection from the respondent. This ultimately led to a favorable verdict for the builder.
The builder often brings these cases to court to seek necessary modifications to their applications, indicating a proactive stance in compliance and adherence to legal requirements. The absence of objections from respondents in the summarized case highlights the builder's ability to negotiate and resolve issues amicably, fostering a collaborative approach to procedural adjustments.
Common reasons for the builder's success in these cases include the clarity of their applications, compliance with legal standards, and the lack of substantial opposition from responding parties. In this instance, the respondents had no objection to the amendment, showcasing a favorable interaction between the parties involved. The builder's ability to defend itself effectively demonstrates a strong understanding of legal processes, further enhancing its reputation in the industry.
This analysis indicates that OM SAI INFRA has developed a strong track record of addressing procedural issues without extended legal battles. It illustrates a classic scenario where builders can be wrongly accused or face unnecessary disputes from opposing parties. Buyers and stakeholders should recognize that not all litigation arises from wrongdoing but may stem from procedural needs or adjustments as seen in this case.
Potential buyers should approach claims against builders with caution and seek comprehensive information before making judgments. While the real estate market can have genuine disputes, the effectiveness of builders like OM SAI INFRA in resolving issues demonstrates that informed decisions are essential for navigating these transactions safely and effectively.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M.A.371-2020(delay) | Maharashtra | Application for amendment allowed. Applicant to c… | ["Amendment Applica… | {"appellant_claim(in detail)": "The applicants so… | Om Sai Infra | Mr. Suyog Tikle | https://drive.google.com/uc?id=115ZcUSlB9rGQQf_cN2RJ-Glv--giexbZ |
Here you’ll find cases where others sued the builder, but the builder won. We’ve included a summary and key insights from each case.
An analysis of the cases filed against the builder OM SAI INFRA, which the builder won, revealed the following information.
The primary disputes revolved around the differentiation between money lending and sale transactions, with many cases stemming from claims for refunds due to alleged delays in possession or unmet promises.
The cases can be grouped under key themes:
- Money Lending vs. Sale Transaction Disputes: Many appellants claimed that they had lent money to the builder, seeking refunds along with interest. However, the builder successfully argued that these transactions were indeed sales, and thus, outside the jurisdiction of RERA, which manages regulations related to real estate transactions.
- Claims for Refunds and Compensation: Several claims made by the appellants centered around requests for refunds due to delays, further complicating the outcomes and requiring legal resolution.
The reasons for these cases being brought to court often included contesting penalties, allegations of project delays, and disagreements over whether financial transactions constituted loans or sales. Notably, a pattern emerged where buyers claimed refunds, indicating a possible misunderstanding or misclassification of the nature of their transactions.
The common reasons behind the builder's success in these cases were evident: the tribunal determined that the transactions were classified as money lending, placing them outside of the RERA's scope. The opposing parties often lacked sufficient evidence to support their claims, and misunderstanding of the regulatory framework played a significant role in the disputes. These outcomes suggest that OM SAI INFRA was often faced with unjust or exaggerated claims from buyers, which it was able to effectively defend against.
What does this analysis suggest about the builder's reputation and the broader real estate market? While disputes in real estate are common and occasionally justified, this case review indicates that some accusations against builders may be unfounded. OM SAI INFRA's ability to navigate and win these legal challenges reflects its strong footing in the market and a robust defensive strategy in the face of hardship.
In conclusion, potential buyers are advised to approach the real estate market with caution and diligence. It's crucial to verify claims and understand the context behind them, as sometimes accusations can be misleading. This summary highlights that builders like OM SAI INFRA have proven capable of defending themselves against frivolous claims and that buyers need to ensure they are making informed decisions when it comes to selecting a builder.