SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED

Introduction

When it comes to selecting a builder for real estate projects, a comprehensive analysis of their legal standing and performance can offer invaluable insights to potential buyers. In this blog post, we examine SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED, a builder operational in Uttar Pradesh, looking closely at their legal track record, recent complaints, and overall reputation.

Overview of SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED

SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED has encountered a troubled history in legal matters with a total of 3 complaints registered against them. Notably, the builder has not won any cases, having lost all 3 cases filed against them. This raises questions regarding their compliance with regulatory statutes and the quality of their building practices.

Legal Case Details

Cases Lost by the Builder

Among the cases that SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED lost, a specific case stands out:

• Claim against Compliance: The builder claimed non-compliance with Section 43(5) of the Act, but the appeal was dismissed. This suggests a critical point of contention regarding adherence to legal and construction regulations, reflecting a lack of accountability at some level within the company.

Common Factors in Lost Cases:

1. Non-Compliance Issues: The recurring theme in lost cases pertains to the builder's failure to comply with statutory requirements. This may indicate a systemic issue within the builder’s operational protocols or a lack of understanding or acknowledgment of regulatory obligations.

Cases Won by the Builder

In contrast, SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED has won 2 cases against appellants:

1. Order Modification Appeal: One case involved the modification of an original regulatory order. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Regulatory Authority, which suggests some administrative performance but does not imply complete vindication of building practices.
2. Possession Dispute: In another case, there was a dispute regarding the possession of a flat, where the tribunal's direction for a written statement indicated a procedural resolution rather than a clear victory reflecting positive builder performance.

Common Factors in Won Cases:

1. Procedural Arguments: Cases won seem to leverage procedural inconsistencies or claims of administrative errors rather than directly addresses quality or service delivery issues—relevant for evaluating real estate builders' trustworthiness.

Conclusion

Based on the data analyzed, potential buyers should approach SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED with caution. The builder’s complete loss record in their legal endeavors raises concerns about their operational standards and adherence to regulations. While they have had some success in challenging regulatory orders, this does not necessarily reflect well on their construction practices or commitment to customer satisfaction.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Research and Verify: Before engaging with SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED or any builder, ensure to conduct thorough research into their legal history and existing customer reviews.
2. Ask for Documentation: Request compliance records or details on how past issues have been resolved. Legitimate builders should be open to sharing this information.
3. Engage Professionals: Consider consulting with a legal advisor familiar with real estate laws to evaluate any builder’s contracts before signing.

General Tips for Selecting a Builder

• Check Reputation: Investigate the builder’s reputation within the community; long-standing builders with a positive track record generally indicate reliability.
• Look for Accreditation: Builders who are recognized by industry bodies or have certifications can offer an additional layer of reassurance.
• Past Performance: Review previous projects completed by the builder for quality, aesthetic, and compliance with local regulations.

Choosing the right builder is crucial for ensuring a satisfactory investment in real estate. By being thorough and critical in your approach, you can increase your chances of a successful and stress-free building experience.

Analysis of the cases filed against Samiah International Builders Limited, where the builder lost, revealed significant insights into the common themes and disputes faced by the builder. The cases highlight two primary areas of concern: delayed possession claims and non-compliance with regulatory orders.

In terms of delayed possession claims, the builder faced legal action from buyers who alleged that they had not received possession of their flats despite the execution of sale deeds. This points to a troubling pattern where buyers may be left waiting for their property, a fundamental expectation when engaging in real estate transactions. The builder's defense often revolved around claims of having provided possession, which indicates a communication gap or a potential misrepresentation of the status of properties.

The non-compliance with regulatory orders theme emerged from cases where the builder was accused of failing to adhere to decisions made by the Regulatory Authority. Buyers or associations representing buyers sought to enforce original orders that had been modified or not complied with, leading to legal consequences for the builder. The builder's responses to these claims often suggested that they believed their actions were lawful or that the claimants lacked standing, but the outcomes suggest otherwise, highlighting an issue with the builder's adherence to regulatory requirements.

Common reasons for bringing cases to court included contesting possession delays and regulatory non-compliance. Buyers were primarily motivated by a desire to secure their invested property and to ensure that builders fulfilled their contractual obligations. The builder’s litigation patterns suggest a reactive rather than proactive approach to addressing grievances, which may indicate a lack of effective customer service or compliance protocols in place.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to a failure to fulfill their commitments, either in delivering property possession or in complying with regulatory orders. The verdicts suggest that the builder may have misrepresented the status of properties or failed to provide adequate evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, the recurring theme of non-compliance with regulatory decisions indicates a systemic issue that could warrant further investigation. Overall, these outcomes should serve as a caution to potential buyers regarding the reliability and accountability of Samiah International Builders Limited.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS LIMITED that resulted in losses reveals some critical insights into recurring themes and patterns in their disputes.

One prominent theme evident in the cases is 'Regulatory Non-compliance', highlighted by the builder's inability to adhere to legal obligations such as the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act.

This theme reflects the builder's challenges in meeting regulatory standards, which has become a recurring issue in their cases.

Additionally, disputes over compliance with legal provisions are another notable theme. In the analyzed case, the builder specifically claimed not to be in a position to comply with the provisions of the Act, illustrating the frequent challenges that builders face regarding situational conformity to specified rules.

This pattern indicates that the builder may have misunderstood or mismanaged their obligations under the legal framework governing their projects.

Notably, the reasons the builder commonly brought cases to court appear to revolve around contesting penalties, presumably imposed by regulatory authorities, or disputing project-related challenges such as delays often attributed to various external factors.

These cases often signal the builder’s efforts to mitigate legal repercussions and defend their business practices against perceived injustices.

However, the builder's losses can generally be traced back to common failings such as insufficient evidence to support their claims, non-compliance with necessary legal or regulatory requirements, and a general misunderstanding of what the law demands concerning project execution and compliance.

These shortcomings may stem from inadequate project management practices or a lack of diligence in understanding and following the legal frameworks relevant to their operations.

Thus, it is evident that thorough adherence to regulations and proactive measures to understand legal obligations is crucial for builders to secure favorable outcomes in disputes.