SHREE RAMA SHREE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Shree Rama Shree Constructions Private Limited operates in Maharashtra but has faced significant legal challenges that potential buyers should be aware of. With a total of two complaints against them, the builder has lost both cases, raising concerns among prospective clients regarding reliability and adherence to contractual obligations.

Legal Case Overview

The complaints against Shree Rama Shree Constructions revolve around the failure to hand over possession of flats on the agreed date. The appellants, who are the buyers, claimed breaches of contract under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, seeking interest as compensation for the delays. In both instances, the builder contested the claims by arguing that the appellants had not paid the remaining balance within the stipulated 12-month period following the agreement for sale, leading to the termination of the contract.

Ultimately, both cases were decided in favor of the appellants, with the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaRERA) ruling that the builder should pay interest on the amounts already paid, calculated at the SBI highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%, starting from January 1, 2013, up until actual possession is given. This suggests that while the builder has managed to assert their claim regarding payment, they have still failed to meet their delivery obligations according to the agreements in question.

Patterns in Legal Cases

• Common Factor: The consistent theme in the cases lost by Shree Rama Shree Constructions is a failure to deliver properties on time. Both claims involved allegations of not handing over possession of flats as per the agreed schedule. This indicates a systemic issue with project completion timelines or communication regarding payment processes.

• No Cases Won: Interestingly, the builder has not won any cases. Their defense regarding the non-receipt of full payments has not proven effective against the claims of possession and contract adherence.

Conclusion

The track record of Shree Rama Shree Constructions Private Limited raises red flags for potential buyers. With two legal losses linked to delayed property possession and an inability to defend those claims effectively, it might be wise to approach this builder with caution.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Due Diligence: Thoroughly research the builder’s history, including any legal cases or complaints filed in the past. Platforms such as MahaRERA can provide insights into ongoing issues.
2. Clarify Payment Terms: Ensure that payment schedules are clear and that the consequences of payment delays are understood.
3. Inspect Previous Projects: Evaluating prior works can give you an indication of the builder’s ability to deliver on time and to the promised specifications.
4. Consider Documentation: Always keep track of all agreements, communications, and contractual obligations to support your claims should issues arise in the future.

General Tips for Choosing Any Builder

• Check Credentials: Always ensure that the builder is registered with appropriate regulatory bodies and has a solid reputation in the market.
• Look for Reviews: Read reviews from past buyers to gauge satisfaction levels and service history.
• Visit Completed Sites: If possible, visit completed projects to inspect quality and adherence to timelines.
• Discuss Guarantees: Understand the guarantees and warranties provided, particularly concerning construction quality and timelines.

In conclusion, while Shree Rama Shree Constructions may appeal due to their offerings, the evidence points to a cautious approach for potential buyers. An informed decision can help protect against the risks observed from their past dealings.

Analysis of the cases filed against Shree Rama Shree Constructions Private Limited, where the builder lost, revealed several key themes and patterns. The cases primarily revolved around delayed possession claims and the builder's termination of the agreement for sale due to alleged failure by buyers to pay the balance amount within a stipulated time.

The most prominent theme was the Delayed Possession Claims. In these cases, the appellants claimed that the builder failed to hand over possession of their flats by the specified date. They sought interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, which aims to protect the interests of homebuyers in case of delays. The builder's defense centered around their claim that the appellants had not paid the balance amount required within 12 months after the execution of the agreement for sale, leading them to terminate the agreement. However, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaRERA) ruled in favor of the appellants, directing the builder to pay interest on the amounts paid by them at a rate that reflects the current lending rates plus a premium.

A common reason for litigation in these cases was the builder's decision to terminate agreements for sale based on an alleged failure to complete payments on time. This points to a significant area of contention between buyers and builders, particularly in a market where financial fluctuations may impact buyers' ability to make timely payments. The builders’ reliance on payment timelines suggests a strict adherence to financial agreements, which may not always align with the realities faced by buyers.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to their inability to fulfill their commitments regarding timely possession delivery. Although they defended their actions by citing payment failures from buyers, the tribunal's ruling indicates that the builder's obligations under the RERA Act took precedence. Their termination of agreements for sale did not absolve them of their duty to deliver possession on time, and this distinction is crucial in understanding the builder's legal responsibilities.

In summary, these cases highlight the importance of adhering to the RERA Act, especially concerning timely possession and the calculation of interest on amounts paid by homebuyers. Buyers should be aware of their rights, and builders must fulfill their obligations to avoid legal repercussions.