SAVIOUR BUILDER PRIVATE LTD

Introduction

In the ever-evolving real estate market, choosing the right builder is crucial for prospective homebuyers. One builder that has garnered attention is Saviour Builder Private Ltd, primarily operating in Uttar Pradesh. In this blog post, we will delve into the legal history of Saviour Builder, examining their cases, outcomes, and what potential buyers should keep in mind when considering a purchase with them.

Legal Case Overview

Saviour Builder Private Ltd has faced a total of 2 legal complaints. Disturbingly, the builder has not won any of these cases but has lost both. The claims primarily revolved around issues of physical possession of flats and delay penalties, indicating concerns from homeowners about their rights and expected deliverables.

Legal Case Details

1. Case Summary:
   - Appellant Claim: The appellant alleged that the builder failed to provide physical possession of the flat and did not pay the agreed delay penalty.
   - Respondent Claim: The builder contended that they had indeed handed over physical possession and had settled the delay penalty per the agreement.
   - Final Verdict: The case was partly allowed by the authorities, resulting in the matter being sent back to the Regulatory Authority for further consideration.

This same pattern repeated in two distinct cases, reinforcing the core issues surrounding possession and financial obligations of delay penalties.

Analysis of Patterns

Cases Lost:

The builder’s two losses in court suggest a recurring theme:

• Failure to Provide Possession: In both instances, the underlying issue was the assertion from appellants that they did not receive the physical possession of their flats, implying significant delays or possibly unmet deliverables.
• Delay Penalty: There was also discontent regarding the financial penalties for delays, with claims not being satisfactorily resolved from the perspective of the complainants.

Cases Won:

While it’s noted that Saviour Builder has a record of zero wins, both cases were categorized under unsuccessful outcomes for the builder. In both instances, their defense centered around claims of compliance with agreements, indicating they believed they had met their obligations, yet the results did not align with these assertions.

Conclusion

Based on the available information, Saviour Builder Private Ltd presents a troubling pattern in their dealings, particularly regarding legal disputes with clients. With 2 cases lost and no victories, potential buyers should approach this builder with caution.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Conduct Thorough Research: Look into not just the builder’s completed projects, but also their legal history. Understanding previous disputes can provide insight into operational standards.
2. Request Documentation: Always ask for proof of claims made by the builder regarding deliverables, possession timelines, and any penalties.
3. Seek Reviews: Explore feedback from previous buyers to gauge the satisfaction levels and any common issues faced.
4. Consider Legal Protection: Consulting with a real estate lawyer may be beneficial before signing any agreements, to ensure your rights are safeguarded.

General Tips for Selecting Any Builder

• Verify Credentials: Ensure the builder has the necessary licenses and affiliations.
• Look for Transparency: A reputable builder should provide clear and open communication about project timelines and costs.
• Inspect Past Projects: Whenever possible, view completed projects personally to assess quality and design.
• Evaluate Financial Stability: The builder's financial health may affect project completion timelines, so it’s wise to research this aspect thoroughly.

Final Thoughts

Choosing a builder is a significant decision that can affect both your financial and emotional well-being. It's crucial to perform due diligence and weigh all aspects before proceeding.

Analysis of the cases filed against Saviour Builder Private Ltd, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the builder's legal disputes. The cases primarily revolved around two common themes: Delayed Possession Claims and Penalties for Project Delays.

The majority of the claims made by the appellants in these cases focused on the builder's failure to provide physical possession of the flats on time, as stipulated in the agreement. Additionally, there were frequent disputes regarding the delay penalties that the builder was required to pay according to the terms of the agreement. The builder consistently claimed to have fulfilled their obligations, asserting that they had delivered physical possession of the flats and paid the requisite penalties. However, the legal outcomes did not align with their defenses, indicating a significant disconnect between their operational practices and contractual commitments.

A pattern emerges from these summaries: the primary trigger for litigation in these cases was the builder's inability to meet project timelines and adhere to the agreed-upon terms. This resulted in multiple parties contesting the delivery dates, the availability of units for possession, and the accompanying penalties for delays. Such disputes highlight ongoing issues in the real estate sector, particularly concerning transparency and effective communication regarding project timelines and expectations.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to a lack of convincing evidence to support their claims. While they maintained that they had provided timely possession and had complied with the payment of delay penalties, the verdicts suggest that the regulatory authority was not satisfied with the proof presented. Furthermore, the decision to remand the matters back to the authority for further examination indicates a need for more diligent scrutiny of the builder's practices and adherence to contractual obligations, potentially uncovering systemic issues that could warrant deeper investigation.