Analysis of the cases filed against Shreeji Developers, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the builder's dealings and the common themes that arose in litigation.

The cases can be broadly categorized into several types, including disputes over the registration of sale documents, compensation payment disagreements, issues related to maintenance deposit refunds, failures to comply with RERA regulations, and project delays/incomplete facilities.

In many instances, the complaints revolved around the builder's failure to register sale documents after receiving full or substantial compensation payments from buyers. This points to an apparent mismanagement or neglect of legal documentation, which is critical in real estate transactions.

Compensation payment disputes were another frequent theme, where buyers claimed to have paid most of the agreed-upon amount, yet faced resistance from the builder when it came to registering the sale documents. This suggests a systemic issue in the builder's payment verification and documentation processes.

The maintenance deposit refunds also stood as a point of contention, with buyers alleging that their deposits were not returned after registration and handover of property. Since maintenance deposits are meant to be refundable, this raises concerns about the builder’s financial accountability and transparency.

Additionally, Shreeji Developers faced several cases tied to non-compliance with RERA regulations. This included failures to file mandatory reports on time, which led to penalties imposed by the authority. The builder's ignorance of the regulatory framework in which they operate highlights a significant operational flaw.

Project delays and incomplete promised facilities were also critical issues, with residents reporting that additional shops were constructed without approval and essential amenities were not provided as committed. This indicates poor project management and a lack of customer-centricity in the builder's operations.

The common reasons for Shreeji Developers' losses in these cases include insufficient evidence to support their claims, non-compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, and a recurring failure to meet contractual obligations—both financial and operational. The patterns emerging from these cases underscore the importance of thorough documentation, regulatory adherence, and transparency in real estate ventures. They also serve as a warning to potential buyers to be vigilant and thoroughly investigate a builder's reputation and operational practices before committing to any transaction.

Analysis of the cases filed by Shreeji Developer, which it lost, reveals several concerning trends pertaining to their operational practices and compliance with legal frameworks. These cases can be grouped into common themes that highlight their primary disputes and weaknesses.

Firstly, under the theme of Non-compliance with Regulatory Requirements, Shreeji Developer faced multiple penalties due to failure to meet reporting obligations on time as mandated by the RERA Act. This includes their inability to file quarterly reports, which was a recurring issue highlighted in the court summaries. The builder frequently cited unforeseen circumstances for their delays, but these claims were not accepted as valid defenses by the authorities.

Additionally, the theme of Penalties for Reporting Delays emerges strongly. The authority consistently fined Shreeji Developers for not submitting the necessary documentation within stipulated timelines. The penalties ranged from ₹25,000 to ₹8,50,000, indicating the seriousness of their non-compliance and the authorities' commitment to uphold regulatory standards. It is imperative to note that repeated reminders for quarterly report submissions were noted, further pointing to a clear neglect of responsibilities on Shreeji Developer's part.

Another significant area of concern falls under Disputes over Registration and Sales. In one instance, the builder was fined a substantial amount for selling property units without proper registration. This violation not only led to financial penalties but also revealed a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard for the legal framework governing real estate transactions. The implications of such actions can severely damage trust and credibility in the eyes of potential buyers.

The common reasons that led Shreeji Developer to court largely revolved around contesting the penalties imposed. They frequently disputed penalties by claiming various reasons for their delays, particularly labeling them as unforeseen circumstances. However, many of these claims were dismissed, suggesting a pattern of attempting to evade responsibility instead of addressing systemic inefficiencies.

The reasons for the builder losing these cases appear to stem from insufficient evidence supporting their claims in defense, non-compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, and a lack of adherence to interim directions provided by the regulatory authorities. Furthermore, the summaries indicate a consistent failure to grasp land or project classification rules, leading to costly litigation and penalties.

In conclusion, prospective buyers should exercise caution when considering projects from Shreeji Developer. The repeated failures to comply with regulatory measures, along with significant financial penalties, raise serious questions regarding their operational integrity and allegiance to the rules governing real estate development. Understanding these patterns can empower buyers to make informed decisions in their real estate investments.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, SHREEJI DEVELOPER, which it won, revealed the following information. The key recurring themes highlight the builder's primary disputes, which can be grouped into four main categories: Registration of Sale Documents, Payment Disputes, Formation of Cooperative Societies, and Maintenance Deposit Issues. These themes illustrate the complex interactions between builders and buyers, often revolving around contractual obligations and regulatory compliance.

1. Registration of Sale Documents: Many cases focused on the failure to register sale documents, with complainants arguing that they had paid most of the compensation due but had not received the necessary documents. In contrast, the builder often claimed that full payments were not made, which led to the issuance delays.
2. Payment Disputes: A recurring issue in the cases was the payment or compensation disputes. Complainants claimed that they were willing to pay the outstanding amounts but cited problems with receiving documentation from the builder as the reason for the delays. The builder often defended itself by highlighting that purchasers had not fulfilled their financial commitments.
3. Formation of Cooperative Societies: Disputes regarding the formation of a cooperative society were also evident, where buyers felt that their attempts to organize were obstructed. The builder’s arguments centered on the absence of compliance from the buyers regarding certain regulatory requirements for registration.
4. Maintenance Deposit Issues: There were disputes over maintenance deposits, with complaints often claiming that the returns of these deposits were unjustifiably withheld. The builder successfully defended these claims by noting the non-payment of due amounts, illustrating conflicts over what constitutes a refundable deposit.

The builder commonly brought these cases to court primarily to contest claims about unregistered sale documents and incomplete payments, highlighting the tension in the builder-buyer relationship. The patterns evident in the cases suggest that many disputes arose from misunderstandings or disagreements over payment schedules and compliance with documentation policies.

SHREEJI DEVELOPER consistently won these cases due to factors such as the opposing parties' insufficient evidence, their non-compliance with legal regulations, and misunderstandings regarding payment terms and conditions. The builder demonstrated an ability to effectively counter claims, often revealing exaggeration or false allegations from buyers.

This analysis sheds light on SHREEJI DEVELOPER's reputation, which appears to be one of resilience against unjust accusations. It serves as a reminder that, in the real estate market, allegations can sometimes be unfounded or exaggerated, leading to legal conflicts. Thus, potential buyers should approach such claims judiciously.

In conclusion, as a prospective buyer, it is crucial to gather comprehensive and reliable information before forming an opinion about a builder's reputation. While the real estate market does face legitimate concerns, the outcomes of these cases indicate that builders like SHREEJI DEVELOPER can often successfully defend themselves against unjust claims. Informed decision-making will empower buyers in navigating the complex landscape of real estate.

This dictionary encapsulates the essential themes that emerged from the case reviews along with a comprehensive overview of the context and implications of these disputes in the real estate sector.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder SHREEJI DEVELOPER, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases primarily fall into two key themes: Disputes Over Allottee Claims and Delayed Possession Claims. Each type outlines the common issues that both buyers and the builder have faced during legal proceedings.

1. Disputes Over Allottee Claims: Many of the cases involved claims by complainants asserting that they were original allottees of specific flats. In the summaries provided, the complainants sought registered sale documents for flats, only to be countered by the builder claiming that these flats had already been sold to other parties. The authority ruled in favor of the builder, establishing that the claims of the complainants lacked validity as they were not the original allottees.
2. Delayed Possession Claims: Another recurring theme centered around delayed possession of flats. In one case, the complainant alleged that possession was not handed over within the stipulated time frame and demanded a refund with interest. However, the defense highlighted that possession was contingent on the complete payment as per the agreement, which the complainant had not fulfilled. The regulatory authority ultimately dismissed the complaint, siding with the builder.

The reasons for bringing these cases to court were primarily centered around contesting penalties and claims of project delays or disputes regarding allocation. A common pattern was evident: buyers often felt wronged due to misunderstandings of contractual obligations or miscommunication about their allotment status.

Analysis of these cases indicates the reasons why SHREEJI DEVELOPER successfully prevailed in court frequently centered on the opposing party's insufficient evidence, non-compliance with contractual or regulatory expectations, and misinterpretations regarding land or project classifications. Buyers have a tendency to pursue legal actions based on what may sometimes be inflated or misrepresented claims, which the builder effectively countered with appropriate documentation and adherence to legal protocols.

This analysis provides insight into SHREEJI DEVELOPER's reputation within the broader real estate market. It reveals a builder capable of robustly defending itself against litigation, suggesting a strong ethical foundation and an adherence to compliance within the industry. This serves as a caution that complaints can occasionally stem from misunderstandings or exaggerated grievances, rather than actual noncompliance from builders.

For potential buyers, this underscores the importance of diligence and informed decision-making. While there are legitimate grievances in real estate, the outcomes of these cases illustrate that reputable builders like SHREEJI DEVELOPER retain the ability to defend against wrongful claims. Buyers should therefore approach any allegations with caution and ensure they rely on verified information before drawing conclusions about a builder's integrity.