Analysis of the cases filed against Prayosha Developers, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes and key pieces of information regarding their legal disputes.

The cases against Prayosha Developers primarily center around three common themes: non-compliance with the RERA Act, regulatory violations, and delays in project registration. In the highlighted case, the appellant claimed that the builder failed to submit the required quarterly reports and extend the deadline for project registration as mandated by the RERA Act. This points to a troubling pattern of disregard for legal obligations related to transparency and compliance in real estate projects.

The reasons for these legal challenges seem to stem from the builder's lack of awareness or wilful ignorance of the RERA Act and other regulatory requirements. The builder's defense—that they were unaware of the law and did not intend to violate it—indicates a systemic issue with their operational practices and compliance protocols. Instead of contesting penalties or disputing delays attributed to other parties, the builder's cases primarily involve regulatory non-compliance and failures in project management, leading to legal consequences.

The common factor in the builder’s losses is their failure to adhere to established regulations and timelines, resulting in legal penalties. In the case summarized, the builder was fined Rs. 50,000 for non-compliance, demonstrating the legal system's emphasis on enforcing transparency and accountability in real estate dealings. Overall, these cases underline the importance for potential buyers to evaluate a builder's legal standing and compliance history before making any investment decisions.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Prayosha Developers, in which it lost, reveals several insights into the recurring themes and key issues at play. By categorizing these cases, we can understand the patterns and trends that may serve as red flags for potential buyers considering projects by this builder.

1. Regulatory Compliance Issues: A significant theme reflects the builder's disputes surrounding regulatory compliance. In the case discussed, the builder claimed adherence to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; however, the respondent highlighted that the necessary compliance status documentation was not provided. This suggests a pattern of the builder potentially failing to meet regulatory expectations or to properly substantiate their claims.
2. Project Documentation Disputes: The lack of sufficient documentation, particularly in terms of compliance, has been a critical factor in these disputes. Builders often assert their projects comply with relevant laws; however, should documentation be lacking, it opens the door for legal challenges and adverse verdicts.

In reviewing these cases, it's evident that Prayosha Developers frequently engaged in litigation primarily for two reasons: to contest penalties allegedly levied against them and to dispute issues related to compliance that they believed were unjust.

However, the common reasons for their losses largely stem from insufficient evidence and non-compliance with legal requirements. Failure to provide necessary documentation or follow interim directives appears to have disadvantaged the builder in court. This highlights a potentially critical operational issue within the company’s management practices, especially in relation to adhering to regulatory norms.

In conclusion, these cases indicate a clear necessity for buyers to thoroughly vet the compliance history and regulatory adherence of Prayosha Developers. Potential clients should be particularly cautious and ensure that they seek insight into project documentation and past compliance issues before making purchasing decisions.