Analysis of the cases filed against Realtech Infrastructure Limited, where the builder lost, revealed several key themes and patterns. The primary disputes can be categorized into two main topics: illegal charges and delay interest, and withdrawal of complaints.

The majority of the cases centered around the builder's demand for various charges that the complainants deemed illegal, including electrification charges, IFMS (Infrastructure Facility Management System), GST (Goods and Services Tax), sinking fund, and delay interest. The builder consistently claimed that these charges were in accordance with their agreement and that possession had been offered in 2020. However, the authority ruled in favor of the complainants, quashing certain charges and ordering the calculation of delay interest at a rate of 9.30% from the deemed date of possession to the date of offer. This highlights a significant area of contention between the builder's financial demands and the expectations of the buyers, as well as a lack of transparency or adherence to agreed-upon payment terms.

Common reasons for bringing these cases to court included contesting financial penalties, disputing delay interest, and disagreements over the legality of other imposed charges. A pattern emerges where buyers felt cheated by additional fees that they believed were not part of the original agreement, leading to a breakdown in trust and the initiation of legal proceedings.

The builder faced losses due to a combination of factors. The repeated rulings against the imposition of various charges indicate a failure on the builder's part to comply with financial regulations or adhere to the terms of agreement. Moreover, the consistent calculation of delay interest at a specified rate suggests that the builder may have incorrectly determined possession dates or failed to fulfill project deadlines, further aggravating buyer grievances.

In addition to the financial disputes, several cases involved complainants seeking to withdraw their complaints. While the specifics of these complaints were not provided, their withdrawal might indicate a range of underlying reasons, such as resolutions reached outside of court, changes in circumstances, or possibly even intimidation or coercion from the builder. The authority's ruling in these instances granted complainants the liberty to file fresh complaints, signaling a cautious legal landscape where buyers felt empowered to reconsider their grievances.

Overall, the analysis of these cases shines a spotlight on the turbulent relationship between Realtech Infrastructure Limited and its buyers, particularly concerning financial transparency and adherence to contractual obligations. Buyers should remain vigilant and informed about their rights when engaging with builders, ensuring thorough documentation and clear communication to mitigate risks in their investments.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, which the builder won, revealed the following information. These cases mainly revolved around disputes categorized into two significant themes: 'Land Sale Disputes' and 'Regulatory Compliance Issues'. The former includes complaints relating to land transactions, where complaints were made that the builder sold licensed land unlawfully, while the latter focuses on issues surrounding the builder's compliance with applicable regulations and requirements related to land registration.

In the documented case, HRERA alleged that Dove Infrastructure sold licensed land to two companies in violation of regulations. The builder responded by asserting that it was not liable for the registration of the land since it had already completed the sale. The final verdict, which ruled in favor of the builder, emphasized that the builder was no longer responsible for registration and issued notices to the other companies, reinforcing the builder's stance on the matter.

These cases were brought to court primarily to contest perceived violations of rights by the buyers or regulatory bodies, often revolving around claims of regulatory non-compliance or disputes over the legality of land sales. Patterns emerge, indicating that buyers sometimes bring cases forward due to misconceptions of their rights or misunderstandings of regulatory requirements.

Common reasons the builder won these cases include demonstrating insufficient evidence from opposing parties, highlighting their non-compliance with necessary legal or regulatory frameworks, and effectively navigating the complexities of land classification rules. It is noteworthy that the builder was able to protect itself against claims that were baseless or inflated, showcasing its competency and preparation in dealing with legal challenges.

This analysis sheds light on the builder’s reputation and the broader dynamics of the real estate market. It highlights that buyers can occasionally make inaccurate accusations against builders, which can lead to protracted legal disputes. The outcomes of these cases indicate that Realtech Infrastructure Limited maintains a strong track record of defending itself against unwarranted claims, further showcasing its credibility in the market.

In conclusion, potential buyers are advised on the importance of making informed decisions. While legitimate disputes do exist in the real estate landscape, the builder's success in these cases signals that builders like Realtech Infrastructure Limited can often aptly safeguard their interests against unjust claims. Therefore, buyers should approach allegations, regardless of the source, with caution and should collect reliable information to accurately gauge a builder's reputation.