| CIN | Not Available |
|---|---|
| Year Established | Not Available |
| Address | Not Available |
| Company Status | Not Available |
Overall Case Outcomes
Introduction
In the realm of real estate, the credibility of a builder is paramount for prospective homeowners and investors. This blog post focuses on Rayant Hotels Private Limited, a builder primarily active in Rajasthan. Despite the appeal of their projects, it's crucial to evaluate their track record, especially when considering a long-term investment.
Overview of Legal Challenges
Rayant Hotels Private Limited has encountered three legal complaints to date, unfortunately losing all of them. This paints a concerning picture regarding their handling of buyer agreements and commitments. Understanding the specifics of these cases can provide prospective buyers with insights into the company’s operational integrity.
Legal Case Details
While the builder has faced three complaints, all of which resulted in losses, it’s essential to highlight what can be learned from these proceedings:
- Common Patterns in Lost Cases: The builder exhibited a pattern of losing cases, all revolving around the claims made …
Cases Lost by Builder (When Defending)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
Analysis of the cases filed against Rayant Hotels Private Limited, where the builder lost, revealed several key points of interest. The disputes primarily center around the builder's attempts to subpoena former Director Sitaram Dangayach as a witness, with all cases showcasing a common theme: the builder's belief that Dangayach could provide critical evidence to support their claims.
The reasons people brought these cases to court were rooted in a desire to compel Dangayach's testimony, which the builder believed would shed light on the facts and circumstances of the case. The patterns emerging from these summaries indicate that the builder faced challenges in convincing the Adjudicating Officer of the relevance and necessity of Dangayach's testimony. In each case, the builder argued that Dangayach was crucial to their evidence, while the respondent countered that he was not a relevant witness and that the application was unjustified.
The common factor leading to the …
Individual case details available for subscribers.
Builder Reviews
No reviews for this builder yet. Be the first one to share your thoughts!