SHUBBAN PROPERTIES VISION

Overview of Shubban Properties Vision

Shubban Properties Vision operates in Maharashtra, where they have garnered attention in the property development sector. However, an alarming statistic underlines their reputation: they face five legal complaints, all of which they have lost. This blog post explores the patterns in the builder's legal battles, providing valuable insights for potential buyers.

Legal Battle Review

Common Patterns in Lost Cases

The builder faced all five legal cases with claims regarding the validity of orders passed by an Adjudicating Officer (AO). Notably, the common factors in these cases include:

• Claims of Lack of Jurisdiction: The appellants consistently argued that the orders rendered by the AO were null and void, primarily claiming a lack of inherent jurisdiction.
• Regulatory Non-compliance: The respondents successfully claimed that the builder failed to comply with provisions under RERA, specifically citing Section 43(5). This regulatory non-compliance seemed to be a crucial aspect of each dismissal.
• Dismissal of Review Petitions: In all instances where appeals were filed, the review petition was dismissed. The courts noted that the grounds raised by the builder were considered matters of merit rather than valid grounds for review.

This analysis clearly indicates a pattern of poorly constructed legal strategies that failed to adhere to RERA provisions, leading to the builder's losses in court.

Lack of Winning Cases

It’s critical to note that Shubban Properties Vision did not win any cases. One may surmise that this absence of favorable legal outcomes is indicative of systemic issues in how they handle their operations and legal obligations. Without successful cases, potential buyers may need to tread cautiously regarding their reliability.

Conclusion

The record of Shubban Properties Vision, marked by five losses in court and no victories, presents significant red flags for potential homeowners. The consistent claims of jurisdictional failings combined with regulatory non-compliance depict a worrying trend within the builder's practices.

Advice for Potential Buyers

• Thorough Research: Before making a purchase decision, conduct comprehensive background research on the builder's track record in compliance and dispute resolution.
• Seek Legal Advice: It may be prudent to consult with a legal expert specializing in real estate before finalizing any deals, especially with builders who have faced multiple complaints.

General Tips for Selecting a Builder

1. Reputation and Reviews: Always check online reviews and feedback from past buyers. A solid reputation can help assure you of their credibility.
2. Legal Standing: Inquire about any legal issues or complaints against the builder. A clean legal slate is often indicative of good practice.
3. Project Quality: Visit completed projects and talk to existing residents to gauge overall quality and satisfaction.

In essence, while Shubban Properties Vision may offer appealing projects, the existing data suggests potential buyers proceed with caution and take all necessary precautions before investing.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Shubban Properties Vision, in which they lost, reveals significant insights into their legal disputes and operational challenges.

The cases can be grouped under several common themes.

1. Claims of Null and Void Orders: A recurring theme across multiple cases is the builder's claim that orders issued by the Adjudicating Officer (AO) were null and void due to a lack of jurisdiction. This implies a pattern of challenging the authority under which decisions were made.
2. Failure to Comply with RERA: Another persistent issue noted in the defenses was the builder's alleged failure to comply with regulatory requirements as established under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). This suggests that the builder may have overlooked critical compliance steps necessary for project execution.
3. Disputes Over Jurisdiction: Closely tied to the first theme, the builder appeared to regularly contest the jurisdiction of the AO, leading to a lack of clarity regarding which body held legal authority over the disputes.
4. Appeals Related to Adjudicating Officer's Decisions: Most of the disputes involved appealing decisions made by the AO, indicating an ongoing struggle with the rulings that impacted the builder's operations.

The reasons behind the builder's decision to pursue these cases often centered on contesting penalties, disputing project delays, and clarifying jurisdictional issues. A significant trigger for litigation seemed to arise from the builder's dissatisfaction with regulatory decisions that they perceived as unjust or lacking proper legal foundation.

However, common factors appearing in the builder's losses reflect a lack of sufficient evidence and an overarching theme of non-compliance with established legal or regulatory frameworks. Specifically, the absence of compliance with RERA regulations was highlighted repeatedly, presenting a fundamental issue related to their operational practices. Additionally, the failure to present compelling arguments to overturn the AO's decisions, whether due to inadequate legal grounding or misunderstanding of jurisdictional nuances, contributed to disappointing outcomes in these legal battles.

These findings underscore a need for improved governance and adherence to regulatory mandates on the builder's part to mitigate future litigation and operational disruptions.