SHIVAM CONSTRUCTIONS & DEVELOPERS

Introduction

When it comes to real estate, understanding a builder's track record is essential for making informed purchasing decisions. In this article, we take a detailed look at Shivam Constructions & Developers, focusing on their legal battles, as well as the implications for potential buyers considering this builder's projects in Gujarat and Telangana.

Overview of Legal Cases

Shivam Constructions & Developers has faced a total of 2 complaints, leading to a record of 0 cases won and 2 cases lost. This suggests a challenging legal standing for the builder, a factor that prospective homebuyers should take into account.

Case Summary

1. Case Filed and Lost by Shivam Constructions:
   • Claim: The appellant stated that they had registered their project online on August 23, 2017, but it had not received the necessary approval from the authorities.
   • Response: The builders contended that the appellant failed to provide the required documentation and information for project registration.
   • Verdict: The authority fined Shivam Constructions Rs. 20,000 for violating the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by failing to register their project prior to marketing.
2. Case Filed Against Shivam Constructions (Builder Won):
   • Claim: A complainant sought a refund for an undelivered flat, along with interest and compensation for mental distress.
   • Response: Shivam argued that the complainant had not paid the remaining amount due under the purchase agreement.
   • Verdict: The authority ruled that the builder must refund the amounts paid, with interest, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,44,550 for promoting sales without proper registration.

Legal Case Analysis

Patterns in Lost Cases

The common theme in the cases that Shivam Constructions has lost relates to a failure to adhere to regulatory requirements. In particular, the builder was penalized for neglecting proper registration procedures before marketing their projects. This indicates a predisposition towards poor compliance with regulations, which can be a red flag for potential buyers.

Patterns in Won Cases

Conversely, in the case won by Shivam Constructions, the outcome favored the builder primarily due to the complainant’s failure to fulfill their financial obligations. This suggests that while the builder may have robust legal defenses in cases where buyers default, it does not mitigate their overall accountability regarding project delivery and regulatory compliance.

Conclusion

Overall, Shivam Constructions & Developers presents a mixed legal track record that may raise concerns among potential homebuyers. The absence of wins in legal disputes, coupled with acknowledged regulatory violations, indicates a need for cautious evaluation.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Research Thoroughly: Look into the builder's past projects, and read reviews from previous buyers to gain insights into their reliability.
2. Verify Documentation: Ensure that all project registrations and approvals are in place before proceeding with any transactions.
3. Understand Legal Rights: Familiarize yourself with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, so you know your rights as a buyer.

General Tips for Selecting Any Builder

• Check Legal Compliance: Always confirm that the builder complies with RERA regulations and has the requisite approvals.
• Look for Transparency: A builder should be open about their processes, timelines, and any potential complications.
• Seek Recommendations: Word-of-mouth from friends and family can often reveal valuable insights into a builder’s reputation.

In conclusion, while Shivam Constructions & Developers might offer attractive projects, the legal outcomes highlight the necessity for buyers to exercise due diligence and remain vigilant in their purchasing decisions.

Analysis of the cases filed against Shivam Constructions & Developers, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes and patterns. The cases primarily revolve around three common topics: refund and compensation claims from buyers, non-compliance with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) registration, and the ensuing penalties for promoting unregistered projects.

Buyers often brought cases to court seeking refunds for undelivered flats, interest on their payments, and compensation for the mental agony endured due to the builder's failure to deliver properties as promised. A prominent case exemplified this where the complainant sought a refund along with interest and compensation after the builder failed to deliver a flat, despite having entered into an agreement. The builder's defense centered around the buyer's alleged failure to pay the remaining amount owed; however, the Authority ruled in favor of the complainant, highlighting the builder's accountability, especially in the absence of RERA compliance.

The reason people commonly contested the builder's actions was primarily due to a lack of transparency and compliance with regulatory requirements. The builder faced penalties for promoting the sale of plots without first obtaining the necessary RERA registration and first obtaining the required permissions from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). This pattern indicates a systemic issue within the builder's operations, which relied on selling properties without adhering to the established legal frameworks, thereby risking the trust and financial investments of buyers.

The builder lost these cases predominantly due to their non-compliance with the legal and regulatory standards set forth by RERA and GHMC. The ruling authorities observed that the builder promoted sales without proper registrations and permissions, leading to a breach of trust with their clients. Moreover, the builder's defenses often revolved around mitigating their accountability by shifting the focus to the buyers’ payment records rather than addressing the core issues of delivery and compliance. This strategy ultimately proved unsuccessful, as the rulings emphasized the builder's obligations to fulfill contracts and adhere to regulatory requirements.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder Shivam Constructions & Developers, in which they lost, reveals several critical insights about their legal challenges and operational practices.

Firstly, the cases can be grouped primarily into themes around regulatory non-compliance and project registration issues. The builder faced penalties linked to failing to meet regulatory requirements, specifically regarding the proper registration of their projects before initiating marketing efforts. These failures to comply with existing laws led to legal disputes and fines imposed by the authorities.

The recurring reason for the builder bringing cases to court seems to stem from disputes over penalties and claims of unfair treatment by regulatory bodies. In the case reviewed, the builder claimed that their project was under registration but faced delays in approval. This indicates a possible attempt to contest the penalties imposed for what they may perceive as bureaucratic inefficiencies rather than their own shortcomings. However, the burden of proof in such matters lies heavily with the builder.

Unfortunately, a common characteristic of the builder's cases was a lack of sufficient evidence and documentation to support their claims. In this instance, the authority highlighted the builder's failure to provide essential documents for registering their project, a critical oversight which ultimately contributed to the unsatisfactory outcome for the builder. Furthermore, there is an apparent misunderstanding or disregard for regulatory procedures, which has led to costly penalties and fines as seen in the case where a fine of Rs. 20,000 was imposed.

Patterns emerging from these cases highlight a combination of inadequate compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, insufficient documentation, and potential misinterpretations of project compliance obligations. It is essential for buyers considering working with Shivam Constructions & Developers to approach with caution, as these legal challenges indicate systemic issues in their operational protocols that could affect project delivery and overall trustworthiness in their projects.