Analysis of the cases filed against the builder SAMRUDDHI DEVELOPERS, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the builder's legal disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into three recurring themes: payment delays and compliance, failure to adhere to tribunal orders, and seeking time extensions for compliance and filings.

The majority of the cases involve payment delays and compliance, where the appellants sought payment of a 50% amount from the builder. The builder consistently assured the tribunal that further payments would be made within a month, yet failed to comply, leading to multiple instances where the builder was granted a last chance to submit a compliance status. This pattern indicates a serious issue with the builder's financial management and adherence to payment schedules.

Failure to adhere to tribunal orders is another common theme in these cases. The builder was frequently absent from hearings and did not comply with previous orders, which resulted in the tribunal threatening to initiate processes under Section 64 of RERA. This highlights a concerning level of disregard for legal obligations by the builder, which can lead to further complications and delays in resolving disputes.

Several cases also involved the builder seeking time extensions for compliance and filings. In these instances, the appellants sought additional time to serve amended copies of documents or to file affidavits of service and outstanding amounts. While seeking extensions may indicate a need for proper documentation and adherence to procedural requirements, it also raises questions about the builder's organizational practices and timely fulfillment of obligations.

The reasons people commonly brought cases against the builder include contesting payment delays, disputing compliance with tribunal orders, and seeking to enforce their rights as buyers. The builder lost these cases primarily due to insufficient evidence of compliance, repeated failures to meet payment obligations, and a lack of response to tribunal directives.

Overall, this analysis suggests that potential buyers should exercise caution when considering SAMRUDDHI DEVELOPERS for their real estate needs. The builder's difficulty with maintaining payment schedules and adhering to legal requirements could pose significant risks, including delays in project completion and financial losses for buyers.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, SAMRUDDHI DEVELOPERS, which it won, revealed the following information.

In reviewing the cases, it becomes clear that a recurring theme is the builder's attempts to amend copies of documents and the subsequent requests for time to address these amendments. The cases primarily revolve around the process of preparing amended documents for court proceedings, signaling an emphasis on thorough and compliant legal documentation.

The builder, in these instances, has sought additional time to serve amended copies within a specified timeframe. This indicates a strategy to ensure that all legal documentation is accurate and aligns with the requirements of the court. The absence of substantial claims from respondents suggests that these disputes do not involve heavy contentions about the fundamental issues at hand, but rather procedural matters surrounding the cases.

In these summaries, the common reasons for bringing cases to court include the necessity of meeting procedural standards and ensuring that all relevant documentation is appropriately filed. The outcomes reflect favorably on SAMRUDDHI DEVELOPERS as they successfully navigated legal processes, illustrating their preparedness and their proactive stance on maintaining compliance with legal requirements.

The victories in court highlight a few significant factors: the adequacy of the builder's legal representation, the clarity and timeliness of their documentation, and possibly the lack of contestation from other parties involved. The builder's ability to defend against claims that may have been exaggerated or unfounded shows a strong foundation in legal awareness and documentation practices.

This analysis offers insights into SAMRUDDHI DEVELOPERS' reputation in the real estate market. The outcomes suggest a builder that is well-prepared to defend its interests against claims that are not substantiated. It highlights an important aspect of the real estate landscape: buyers and third parties may occasionally lodge claims that can lead to unnecessary legal disputes, sometimes resulting in false narratives against builders.

In conclusion, potential buyers should be mindful of their research and remain informed. While disputes in real estate can be legitimate, the analysis of these cases illustrates that builders like SAMRUDDHI DEVELOPERS are equipped to address accusations that may not always be based on factual grounds. Buyers are encouraged to approach claims critically and to seek out reliable information, as it can be a deciding factor in understanding a builder's true reputation.