Analysis of the cases filed against Puravankara Limited, which it lost, revealed a multitude of themes across various disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into types that reflect the common grievances of the complainants.

Delayed Possession Claims

Many cases centered around the builder's failure to deliver possession of flats within the stipulated timeline. Complainants often sought compensation for these delays, which led to a series of legal battles. The outcomes generally favored the complainants, highlighting systemic issues within the builder's project management capabilities.

Refund and Compensation Disputes

Many complainants sought refunds due to delays, non-fulfillment of promises regarding amenities, and other grievances. The builder's inability to meet the expectations created during the sale process resulted in legal actions where the complainants sought to recover their investments along with interest. The verdicts typically mandated refunds or compensation, indicating a lack of accountability on the builder’s part.

Non-Compliance with Agreements and Regulations

Several cases pointed to the builder's non-compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, particularly concerning the provision of registered agreements for sale and completion of projects as promised. The authority consistently directed the builder to return amounts paid by complainants, underscoring the importance of regulatory adherence in real estate transactions.

Amenities and Services Delivered

There were also disputes regarding the promised amenities that were not delivered or were insufficient. This is a recurring theme in real estate litigation and reflects a common trap that buyers fall into, where the promised lifestyle is not met with the actual delivery of amenities and services.

Environmental Clearance and Approvals

The builder faced legal challenges related to environmental clearance for their projects. The tribunal emphasized the necessity for builders to obtain the appropriate approvals before making changes to projects that could impact the environment.

Payment and Maintenance Charges

Finally, several cases revolved around the builder's charging practices, particularly concerning car parking and monthly maintenance fees. The tribunal ruled in favor of the complainants, indicating that builders should only charge fees that are justified and agreed upon in the sale agreement.

The common triggers for these legal disputes primarily involve the builder's failure to meet deadlines, provide promised amenities, and comply with regulatory requirements. The reasons for the builder's losses in these cases often include insufficient evidence to justify their actions, failure to adhere to agreements, and misunderstandings of their obligations under the law.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder PURAVANKARA LIMITED that it lost revealed insightful patterns regarding their disputes in the real estate sector. The cases can be grouped into a few recurring themes that highlight the builder's primary conflicts.

1. Delayed Possession Claims: In one notable case, the builder was challenged due to claimed delays in executing contractual obligations like the registration of a rectification deed. The complainant requested interest for the delay, indicating the builder's failure to uphold timely delivery and proper documentation as per agreed terms.
2. Contractual Non-compliance: This theme encompasses disputes where the builder was accused of not adhering to specific contractual agreements, particularly regarding finishing works and property specifications. These disputes often led to questions about whether all terms were met satisfactorily before possession was granted.
3. Disputes over Area Specifications: A common area of contention has been regarding the dimensions of the property, particularly the carpet area stipulated in the agreement. The builder claimed that all specifications were agreed upon, while the complainant challenged this assertion, highlighting possible misunderstandings or miscommunication.

The builder commonly brought these cases to court in an attempt to contest penalties for delays, dispute claims regarding possession timing attributed to external factors, and clarify disagreements over contractual terms and property specifications. These patterns indicate a recurring theme of litigation driven primarily by clients feeling aggrieved due to delays and unfulfilled promises.

The common reasons reported for the builder's losses in these cases include insufficient evidence to support their claims, such as the failure to provide clear proof of timely compliance to contractual obligations. Additionally, cases were lost due to non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements, as well as failure to follow interim directions from authorities. Furthermore, misunderstandings of land or project classification rules could be contributing factors.

Overall, these case summaries reveal not just the legal difficulties faced by PURAVANKARA LIMITED, but also serve as a crucial indicator for potential buyers seeking to engage with this builder, emphasizing the need for thorough due diligence and clarity in all contractual dealings.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, PURAVANKARA LIMITED, which it won, revealed the following information. The builder's primary disputes can be grouped into several key themes: Delayed Payment Claims, Possession and Compensation Disputes, Refunds and Information Disclosure Issues, and Regulatory Disputes. These categories represent the main issues that led to legal actions involving this builder.

In the realm of Delayed Payment Claims, complaints typically arose when buyers alleged that interest was not paid on delayed amounts. PURAVANKARA LIMITED often defended itself successfully by showcasing that payments made, while at times delayed from the buyer's side, did not warrant additional interest claims due to their own compliance with prior agreements.

Possession and Compensation Disputes highlight instances where buyers sought compensation for delays in receiving their properties. In many of these cases, the builder contended that possession was delivered on time, effectively countering claims for additional compensation. Moreover, Refunds and Information Disclosure Issues occurred when buyers claimed a lack of information about financing offers and requested refunds. PURAVANKARA maintained they had adequately informed buyers, proving pivotal in defending themselves against unjust claims.

Additionally, regulatory disputes presented another layer of complexity, where the builder often filed appeals against orders they perceived as unfavorable, resulting in outcomes based on compromises between parties. This suggests that there is a pattern emerging where PURAVANKARA LIMITED frequently engages in disputes that result from misunderstandings or miscommunications with buyers, rather than outright negligence or wrongdoing.

The success in these cases can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the lack of sufficient evidence from the opposing parties often undermined buyer claims. Furthermore, cases indicated instances where buyers failed to comply with payment schedules or possessed prior knowledge that absolved the builder of blame. Such patterns demonstrate how lawful defenses, along with strategic presentations in court, supported the builder in negating exaggerated allegations from buyers.

This analysis reflects positively on the builder’s reputation within the broader real estate market, suggesting that while legitimate grievances exist, it is also possible for buyers to make unfounded accusations. PURAVANKARA LIMITED's strong track record of successfully defending itself against unjust claims reinforces its standing as a reputable builder.

To potential buyers, this underscores the importance of due diligence and making informed decisions. While the real estate market can indeed harbor disputes, the findings from these cases illustrate that builders like PURAVANKARA LIMITED are generally capable of mounting vigorous defenses against wrongful accusations. It is crucial for buyers to approach claims with discernment and to seek reliable information to accurately assess a builder's reputation before drawing conclusions.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, PURAVANKARA LIMITED, which the builder won, revealed several important themes and insights into the disputes that arose in the real estate context.

1. Withdrawal of Complaints

Several cases involved complaints that were voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Disputes over refunds and project expectations often saw amicable resolutions where both parties agreed to drop the claims, indicating that at times contention may arise from misunderstandings or changing circumstances.

2. Non-Compliance and Objections

There were cases where plaintiffs claimed violations of obligations, such as those under the RERA Act. However, the builder was able to demonstrate fulfillment of their commitments, emphasizing that complaints often stem from a lack of awareness regarding legal obligations.

3. Delayed Possession Claims

Some complaints centered around the non-timely handover of properties. However, in these instances, the builder successfully argued that they met deadlines and properly informed complainants about the next steps in registration and possession.

4. Refund Claims

Claims for refunds, often related to cancellations or dissatisfaction with the execution of agreements, were common. In several cases, the builder's provided evidence refuted plaintiffs' claims of non-refunds, reinforcing their reliability in handling transactions.

5. Default in Payment Claims

Disputes arising from claims of delayed possession were countered by evidence of payment defaults on the complainants' part. This shows a pattern where buyers may not fully adhere to their financial obligations, leading to disputes.

6. Completion Delays

There were allegations concerning the incomplete provision of amenities and delays in project completion. However, the company maintained that these claims were often tied to buyer defaults, thus shifting the responsibility back to the complainants.

7. Insufficient Evidence Cases

A recurring theme was the dismissal of cases due to insufficient evidence or failure to meet specific legal requirements. This highlights the importance of clear documentation and adherence to procedural rules when filing complaints.

Throughout these cases, common reasons for bringing disputes to court included contesting penalties, seeking refunds, and claiming project delays. A consistent pattern emerged where complainants often lacked robust evidence, leading to dismissals in favor of the builder.

The builder’s ability to win these cases indicates their strong legal standing and capacity to rebut claims effectively. In many instances, they demonstrated that the complaints were misguided or results of buyers' misinterpretations of their obligations or misunderstandings of contractual agreements.

This analysis indicates that PURAVANKARA LIMITED has maintained a strong reputation in the real estate market, successfully defending against accusations that turn out to be unfounded. Potential buyers should be aware that while legitimate disputes exist, sometimes accusations can stem from uninformed complaints.

Therefore, potential buyers are advised to make informed decisions, seeking clarity on their rights and the obligations of builders. While builders can face legitimate scrutiny, this analysis shows that leading companies like PURAVANKARA LIMITED often emerge unscathed from legal challenges when faced with exaggerated or unwarranted complaints. Awareness and diligence are paramount in navigating the real estate landscape.