Analysis of the cases filed against Shree Sai Builders, which it lost, revealed several key themes across the disputes. The cases primarily revolve around two main topics: penalties for project delays and disputes over project reporting and compliance, particularly with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act.

In terms of penalties for project delays, the cases often involve the builder's failure to complete projects on time, which led to claims for penalties from the other parties involved. For instance, in the case of 'Sai Plaza,' the builder was accused of not submitting the final project report and not paying the required penalty as per the RERA Act. This highlights a pattern where builders may face legal action due to insufficient adherence to project timelines and regulatory requirements.

Disputes over project reporting and compliance also stood out, demonstrating a significant area of contention between the builder and the appellants. Builders are required to maintain thorough documentation and comply with the RERA Act, which governs the real estate sector. In the 'Sai Plaza' case, the builder claimed to have submitted the final report and paid the penalty, but the appellant contested this, asserting that the documentation was not accepted. This indicates a common issue where builders may not fulfill their reporting obligations adequately or face challenges in getting their documentation accepted by the relevant authorities.

The reasons people commonly bring cases against Shree Sai Builders seem to center around the builder’s failure to meet project deadlines, comply with RERA, and fulfill their reporting obligations. The appellants often contest penalties, claiming that the builder has not adhered to the agreed-upon terms or legal standards. This pattern suggests that the builder's operational practices may not be in alignment with the expectations of its clients and the regulatory framework, leading to legal disputes.

The builder's losses in these cases can be attributed to several factors, including insufficient evidence to support their claims, non-compliance with the RERA Act, and possible miscommunication or misunderstanding with the appellants regarding project reporting and acceptance. The verdicts emphasize the importance for builders to ensure timely project completion, maintain proper documentation, and adhere to the regulations set forth by the RERA Act to avoid legal ramifications.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder Shree Sai Builders, which it lost, revealed some critical insights regarding the nature of their disputes and the underlying issues leading to unfavorable outcomes in court. The cases can be grouped under two main themes: 'Regulatory Non-Compliance' and 'Project Compliance Penalties'.

1. Regulatory Non-Compliance: This theme primarily revolves around the builder's failure to adhere to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and related rules. In the analyzed case, the builder claimed that a mere mistake in filling out the final report led to their failure to submit it. However, the regulatory body countered that this failure constituted a breach of the RERA provisions. The court's verdict imposed a penalty, highlighting the importance of compliance with regulatory requirements.
2. Project Compliance Penalties: This theme captures instances where the builder faced penalties due to violations associated with their projects. The builder's claims often focused on mitigating circumstances, such as accidental errors in documentation. However, these defenses did not hold up in court. This trend points to a consistent issue of the builder not aligning their project operations with the stipulated regulations, resulting in significant financial penalties.

The main reasons the builder pursued litigation stemmed from a desire to contest penalties and project delays rather than accepting responsibility. They frequently argued that mistakes or misunderstandings were the root cause of their failures. This reliance on disputing regulatory penalties indicates a pattern where the builder was perhaps looking to avoid consequences rather than ensuring compliance from the outset.

Common reasons for the builder's losses in these cases include:

• Insufficient evidence to support their claims.
• Non-compliance with legal and regulatory obligations, as reflected in the verdicts.
• Failure to follow interim directions and expectations set forth by regulatory bodies.
• Misunderstandings or mishandling of land classification rules, resulting in non-compliance.

Overall, these legal challenges illuminate the necessity for builders to prioritize regulatory compliance and diligent project management. Buyers should remain cautious and prefer builders who demonstrate a track record of adhering to regulatory frameworks and fulfilling their obligations without recurring disputes.

This structured dictionary provides an organized overview of the recurring themes in the builder's cases, along with a detailed analysis of the issues the builder faced and the reasons for losing their legal disputes.