SHRI PARASRAM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

Introduction

In the ever-evolving real estate market, buyers often find themselves dealing with different builders, each presenting unique offers and challenges. One such builder is Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited. This blog post will delve into their complaint history, case outcomes, and what prospective buyers can glean from this information.

Builder Overview

Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited has reported a total of 39 complaints, all of which resulted in 39 wins in legal cases, demonstrating a perfect track record against claims made by complainants. Notably, they have lost 0 cases. Their operational focus is primarily in Haryana.

Legal Case Analysis

Cases Won by Shri Parasram Industries

In the cases that Shri Parasram filed and won, where they had an active role as the respondent (19 cases in total), several patterns emerged:

• Common Claims Against the Builder: Many complainants raised issues regarding the delay in possession of their allotted units and reduction in super area without proper communication or consent. Furthermore, complaints often included disputes over unjustified demands for additional charges such as VAT, electrification, and maintenance fees.
• Builder’s Defense: In their defense, the builder consistently maintained that the adjustments made to super area were legitimate and in accordance with the buyer's agreement. They also highlighted that complaints typically stemmed from the buyers' failure to make timely payments.
• Verdicts: The outcomes favoring Shri Parasram involved directives from authorities to pay interest on delayed possession and to ensure the handover of units, but they were predominantly able to refute claims for additional payment demands from the complainants.

Cases Lost by Shri Parasram Industries

Conversely, in cases where Shri Parasram lost (20 cases), the analysis reveals a different narrative:

• Nature of Complaints: The appeals were typically concerning exemptions from mandatory pre-deposits, where the appellants argued that they were not required to make any upfront payments based on cross-decree assertions.
• Outcomes: The verdict in these cases universally dismissed the appellants' claims for exemption. They reaffirmed the necessity of pre-deposit as mandatory, indicating that the builder might lack flexibility or appeal in their operational execution.

Conclusion

Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited demonstrates a strong legal standing with a perfect case-winning record. However, the high number of complaints suggests dissatisfaction among some buyers, primarily revolving around delays and issues in payment recoveries. For potential buyers considering purchasing from this builder, it's crucial to remain informed.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Thorough Research: Review all available documentation regarding the buyer’s agreement, including clauses about super area reductions and payment expectations.
2. Communication: Maintain open lines of communication with the builder to ensure clarity on timelines and potential issues, especially relating to possession.
3. Legal Consultation: Consider seeking advice from legal professionals who specialize in real estate to understand all rights and obligations.

General Tips When Selecting Any Builder

• Reputation Check: Investigate the builder's reputation through reviews and previous buyer experiences.
• Evaluate Complaints: Look at the nature of complaints against the builder and how they are resolved, as these can be indicators of their reliability and customer service approach.
• Future Resale Value: Consider the location and future development plans in the area, which can impact the property's resale value.

In conclusion, while Shri Parasram Industries has a strong track record in legal cases, potential buyers should be vigilant and informed, ensuring their investment is protected.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, which it won, revealed the following information. The cases predominantly revolve around key themes such as Delayed Possession Claims, Disputes over Super Area Reduction, Claims for Excess Amounts, Common Area Maintenance Charge Disputes, and Refund and Excess Payment Issues.

1. Delayed Possession Claims: Many complainants claimed that the builder delayed possession of their allotted units. The builder consistently defended these claims by asserting that any delays were due to defaults in payment by the complainants or other agreed-upon terms outlined in the buyer's agreement.
2. Disputes over Super Area Reduction: Numerous cases highlighted complaints regarding the reduction in super area without prior intimation or consent. The builder stood firm, often citing the buyer's agreement clauses that permitted such reductions, thus validating their actions.
3. Claims for Excess Amounts: Some complainants sought refunds for excess payments attributed to the alleged reduction in super area. In these cases, the builder's defense typically rested on the terms agreed to at the time of booking, demonstrating that the buyers were informed of potential additional charges.
4. Common Area Maintenance Charge Disputes: Disputes over maintenance charges were also a recurring theme. The builder successfully argued that these charges were part of the initial terms agreed upon by the buyers, reinforcing their position against claims of unjustified charges.
5. Refund and Excess Payment Issues: Several cases included requests for refunds of excess amounts and cancellation of unit allotments. The builder often maintained that these cancellations were processed improperly or were based on false claims, leading to favorable judgments in their favor.

In examining the reasons behind the builder's litigation, it becomes clear that there are common triggers for these disputes. Frequently, these cases stem from misunderstandings on the part of the buyers regarding the terms of the agreements, resulting in accusations that the builder has failed to adhere to its obligations. The analysis indicates that the builder has been able to effectively defend against claims often perceived as exaggerated or unfounded by demonstrating compliance with the legal requirements established in the buyer’s agreements.

This analysis tells us about the builder’s reputation within the broader real estate market. It also serves as an important reminder that buyers must exercise caution; false accusations can lead to protracted legal battles. Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited has shown a strong capability in defending itself against what appears to be unjust claims, indicating a resilient reputation in a competitive market.

For potential buyers, it's crucial to make informed decisions by thoroughly understanding the terms of agreements and the credibility of claims before forming opinions about a builder’s reputation. While there are indeed legitimate disputes in the real estate sector, this analysis emphasizes that builders like Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited can often defend themselves effectively when wrongly accused. Therefore, buyers should approach such claims critically and seek reliable information, thereby empowering themselves to make informed real estate decisions.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed several key insights regarding the nature of disputes and outcomes.

The primary type of cases revolves around claims challenging the requirement of pre-deposits in relation to specific orders purportedly viewed as cross-decrees by the appellants. The recurring theme across these cases is the assertion that appellants were not liable for pre-deposits, grounded in interpretations of orders which they claimed absolved them from such obligations. However, the respondent consistently maintained that the requirement for a pre-deposit was mandatory, thereby positioning the builder's defense on solid legal ground and compelling the courts to uphold this position, leading to dismissals of the appeals.

These cases were brought to court largely due to a misunderstanding or a deliberate contestation of the mandatory nature of pre-deposit obligations, which are essential for adjudicating commercial disputes. Buyers were seeking exemption based on interpretations of their agreements, while the builder defended its stance by providing clear legal assertions about the inevitability of these deposits according to applicable regulations.

The common reasons for the builder's favorable verdicts stemmed from corroborating evidence and legal justifications demonstrating the appellants' ineligibility for the exemptions they claimed. The courts consistently found the appellants failed to meet the legal threshold necessary for exemption, emphasizing the robustness of the builder's defensive strategy and the foundational regulatory frameworks that supported their position.

This analysis highlights important takeaways about the builder’s reputation within the industry and the broader real estate market. It underscores the reality that buyers may sometimes make unfounded accusations or misinterpret contractual obligations, leading to unnecessary legal disputes. Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited has demonstrated a commendable track record in effectively countering such claims, exhibiting resilience in the face of potentially unjustified legal challenges.

For potential buyers, it's crucial to make informed decisions based on a thorough understanding of legal frameworks and builder track records. While it's fair to be cautious about claims in the real estate sector, the case histories of builders like Shri Parasram Industries Private Limited illustrate their capacity to defend against baseless allegations. Buyers should always approach claims critically and seek reliable information before forming judgments about a builder's integrity and reputation.