Analysis of the cases filed against Shree Krishna Corporation, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes across the disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into two types: penalties for project delays and disputes over compliance with regulatory requirements.

In the case of penalties for project delays, the builder was fined for violating Section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. The promoter had claimed that their consultant was unable to fill the quarter on time, which indicates a common pattern where builders attribute delays to other parties involved in the project. This highlights a significant trigger for litigation, as builders often contest penalties by seeking to shift the blame for delays to consultants, contractors, or other stakeholders.

The reason the builder lost this case likely stems from insufficient evidence to support their claim of timely compliance. The imposition of a penalty suggests that the regulatory body found substantial grounds to believe that the builder failed to meet the required timelines, leading to a breach of trust and compliance with the Act.

These cases demonstrate a need for buyers to be vigilant when engaging with builders who may have a history of legal disputes, particularly those that involve repeated penalties for delays or non-compliance. Buyers should conduct thorough research, seek direct testimonials from previous customers, and review public records on the builder’s litigation history before making any investment.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder Shree Krishna Corporation, which it lost, revealed several important insights.

The builder's disputes primarily revolved around issues of compliance, particularly concerning applications for project alterations and penalties associated with delays. The key themes identified include 'Alteration Application Compliance,' which pertains specifically to the timeliness and correctness of applications for project alterations, and 'Project Delay Penalties,' where the builder faced significant financial repercussions for failing to meet deadlines and project specifications.

In many instances, Shree Krishna Corporation brought cases to court in a bid to challenge penalties imposed due to alleged delays or non-compliance with alterations that they believed had been submitted on time. The company seemed to robustly contest the claims from respondents asserting that they did not adhere to the prescribed timelines for applications or project requirements. This indicates a pattern where the builder's litigation was often triggered by disagreements over compliance with regulatory measures or project management practices.

However, the common reasons for the builder's losses in these cases were manifold. Frequently, the verdicts were influenced by a lack of adequate evidence on the builder's part to substantiate their claims of timely submissions. Moreover, there was a clear indication of non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements in their applications, which undermined their position in court. The failures to follow interim directions or guidelines issued by regulatory bodies also played a pivotal role in the unfavorable outcomes.

Ultimately, these patterns highlight the necessity for builders to maintain diligent adherence to project timelines and regulatory protocols, as failure to do so not only jeopardizes their projects but also opens the door to significant legal challenges. Buyers should exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence when dealing with builders who have faced such disputes, as these are indicative of deeper operational flaws that could potentially affect their investments.

This dictionary outlines the main topics related to the builder’s disputes and provides a comprehensive summary that analyzes the patterns observed in the cases filed by Shree Krishna Corporation, offering potential buyers valuable insights into the builder's operational practices and risks associated with investment.