Analysis of the cases filed against Shri Krishna Developers, where the builder lost, revealed significant insights into their operational practices and compliance with regulatory standards. The cases can be broadly categorized into four themes: Non-compliance with Regulatory Requirements, Delayed Possession Claims, Penalties for Project Delays, and Failure to Communicate or Respond.

The builder faced penalties due to a lack of compliance with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act and Rules. For instance, they were fined for not submitting quarterly reports and applications for extending deadlines on the Gujrera portal. This highlights a concerning pattern where the builder may have been either misinformed or chose to ignore regulatory obligations, leading to legal repercussions.

Delayed Possession Claims emerged as another significant theme. In one case, the builder failed to develop a plot of land and provide possession to the buyer despite receiving full payment. The buyer was forced to take legal action, which resulted in an order for the builder to repay the principal amount along with interest and compensation. This case illustrates a breach of contract and trust by the builder, a recurring issue that raises alarms for potential buyers.

The builder also faced direct penalties for project delays. While they claimed to have completed projects on time, the issue often revolved around their failure to file appropriate documentation to confirm compliance. An example of this is the respondent being penalized for not filing a final project report, which demonstrates a lack of procedural adherence and transparency in their operations.

Finally, the theme of Failure to Communicate or Respond stands out, as evidenced by the builder's lack of response to complaints made by the defendants in one case. This silence can perpetuate mistrust and often results in a negative outcome in legal proceedings, as it may imply negligence or avoidance of responsibility.

In conclusion, the cases against Shri Krishna Developers reflect common triggers for litigation, including regulatory non-compliance, delays in possession, and failures in documentation and communication. The builder's losses in these cases primarily stem from insufficient evidence, a lack of understanding of their legal obligations, and a recurring failure to meet contractual commitments. These patterns should be taken into account by potential buyers when contemplating a purchase from this developer.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder Shri Krishna Developers, which it lost, reveals some crucial insights about its legal disputes and operational challenges. The primary themes that emerged from these case files center around 'Regulatory Non-compliance' and 'Penalties for Project Delays'. Each of these themes represents common issues that the builder faced in multiple instances.

In terms of regulatory non-compliance, the builder often found itself in disagreements with authorities regarding the timely submission of necessary documentation, specifically, the final project reports required under the RERA Act. In the highlighted case, the builder contested that they had completed the project on time but failed to file the final report, attributing this oversight to other conditions not being met. Such cases typically involve builders facing penalties or fines for not adhering to legal requirements laid out by regulatory bodies.

The penalties for project delays surfaced as a recurrent theme where the builder sought to challenge fines imposed for late submissions or non-compliance with stipulated timelines. In this instance, the authority concluded that the promoter's failure to submit the final report on time was a clear violation of established regulations under the RERA Act and justified the imposition of a Rs. 20,000 fine.

The reasons behind the builder's litigation often appeared to stem from a desire to minimize financial penalties and contest regulatory actions perceived as unjust. For instance, the builder frequently argued that they had fulfilled their obligations but faced delays due to conditions outside their control. This indicates a pattern where Shri Krishna Developers predominantly sought to challenge verdicts they deemed unfavorable pertaining to project timelines and compliance measures.

However, a notable trend in why the builder lost these cases revolves around insufficient evidence to support their claims. In the discussed case, it was evident that despite the builder's assertions of compliance, the authority found clear violations of the provisions established under the RERA. This suggests that the builder may frequently underestimate the importance of meeting documentation and procedural requirements critical to their defense. Furthermore, the lack of compliance with legal timelines and requirements led to unfavorable outcomes in their disputes.

In conclusion, the examination of these cases serves as a cautionary tale for potential buyers, emphasizing the importance of due diligence when selecting a builder. Buyers should critically assess a builder's compliance record and consider the implications of any past litigation as indicators of their operational reliability and accountability.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Shri Krishna Developers, which the builder won, revealed the following information.

The disputes ranged from non-completion of promised common amenities to delays in submitting necessary documentation for regulatory compliance.

One common theme is the non-completion of common amenities. In one of the cases, the complainant alleged that the builder had not completed amenities as promised in their marketing materials. However, the builder defended itself by stating that the amenities were still under construction. The case underscores the frequent contention between buyers' expectations based on promotional literature and the actual project timelines.

Another theme emerging from the case summaries relates to the timely submission of documentation. In one instance, the builder claimed that they were unable to provide the annual audit report due to a unique issue with their PAN card and pending permissions. This reflects a recurring issue in real estate projects where regulatory compliance can become a contentious point.

These cases were brought to court due to buyers feeling misled regarding project progress and claiming penalties for delays or non-performance. A notable pattern is that such complaints often stem from misunderstandings regarding project completion timelines or documentation requirements enforced by regulatory bodies.

The reasons the builder won these cases can be attributed to sufficient evidence proving that claims were unfounded or lacked legal standing. For instance, in the case about common amenities, the authority found that the builder’s claims of ongoing construction were valid, and the complaints did not have substantial merit. Moreover, the second case revealed that the builder was exempt from criminal proceedings due to exceptional circumstances surrounding documentation delays.

This analysis indicates that Shri Krishna Developers has been effective in defending itself against claims that could be viewed as either false or exaggerated. It highlights the potential for misunderstandings between buyers and builders, often resulting in legal disputes when expectations do not align with reality.

In conclusion, potential buyers should adopt a cautious approach when evaluating builders and their reputation. While there are genuine disputes in the real estate sector, the outcomes of these cases illustrate that builders like Shri Krishna Developers can successfully defend themselves against unjust claims. Buyers are advised to seek reliable information and consider legal recourse carefully before forming opinions about a builder's credibility.