Analysis of the cases filed against Shree Ram Construction, where the builder lost, revealed several key themes and patterns. The disputes primarily revolve around two main topics: amenities provision disputes and withdrawal and objection cases.

In terms of amenities provision, one significant case highlighted the issue of the builder failing to provide basic facilities such as a lift and water supply in their building. The Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority ruled in favor of the complainants, directing the builder to install a lift facility and a submersible motor for the bore within 15 days. This case underscores a common expectation among homebuyers regarding the adequate provisioning of amenities in residential units.

The second theme pertains to withdrawal and objection cases, where three out of the four summarized cases ended where the complaints were withdrawn by the complainants. However, the builder's advocate objected in one case due to unpaid fees, which illustrates another layer of complexity in real estate transactions, where financial disputes between clients and their representatives can arise separately from issues with the builder themselves.

A pattern emerges from these summaries: the builder’s litigation often stems from failure to meet contractual obligations regarding amenities, as well as peculiarities in the withdrawal of complaints that may reflect underlying issues in communication or financial dealings between buyers and their advocates.

The common reason for the builder's loss in these cases seems to revolve around their inability to fulfill promised specifications and facilities in their residential projects. The ruling by the regulatory authority emphasizes the importance of compliance with baseline requirements for decent living conditions, indicating a shortfall in the builder's performance in this regard.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Shree Ram Construction, which they won, revealed the following information.

The cases can be grouped under two common themes: Non-compliance with Permits and Barred Claims and Res Judicata.

1. Non-compliance with Permits: In one case, the complainant alleged that the builder did not provide common amenities and failed to obtain necessary permits for the project. This highlights how buyers' expectations about amenities and regulatory compliance are crucial factors driving complaints against builders.
2. Barred Claims and Res Judicata: The builder successfully argued that a previous complaint from the same complainant was barred by res judicata, meaning that the issue had already been settled in a prior legal proceeding. This emphasizes the legal principle that prevents parties from litigating the same issue multiple times, which is important for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

The reasons these cases were brought to court typically stemmed from perceived failures on the part of the builder, such as not providing expected amenities or not adhering to necessary regulations. The underlying patterns suggest that buyers, in certain cases, might have misunderstandings about the expectations or the legal frameworks governing real estate transactions.

The builder's success in these legal battles can be attributed to several factors. In defending themselves, Shree Ram Construction highlighted insufficient evidence from claimants, particularly when complaints were based on previously addressed issues. Additionally, the application of legal doctrines like res judicata played a significant role in thwarting repetitive claims. This shows a robust adherence to legal norms and suggests that the builder navigates the complex regulatory environment adeptly.

This analysis indicates Shree Ram Construction's capability to protect their reputation against potentially unfounded allegations. It illustrates a broader trend in the real estate market where builders may face disputes stemming from miscommunications or unrealistic buyer expectations. Buyers should be aware that allegations against builders may not always be valid and can sometimes stem from misunderstandings or exaggerations.

In conclusion, it is important for potential buyers to make informed decisions. While legitimate disputes certainly exist within the real estate market, the outcomes of these cases suggest that builders like Shree Ram Construction can effectively defend against unjust claims. Prospective buyers are encouraged to approach claims with caution and to seek out dependable information to guide their perceptions of a builder’s reputation.