Analysis of the cases filed against Shubh Infrastructure, where the builder lost, revealed significant insights into their business practices and legal disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into four themes: Delayed Possession Claims, Failure to Provide Registered Sale Documents, Disputes Over Development Charges, and Execution of Orders and Directions.

The first theme, Delayed Possession Claims, encompasses cases where buyers claimed they were not provided timely possession of their flats despite having made full payments. For instance, in one case, a buyer who had paid Rs. 24,75,900/- for a flat faced prolonged delays in possession, leading to a ruling in their favor that included interest compensation for the delay and damages for mental distress.

The second theme, Failure to Provide Registered Sale Documents, highlights cases where buyers expressed concerns over the lack of registered sale deeds despite having completed their payments. This points to an apparent mismanagement or neglect by the builder in fulfilling a critical contractual obligation, as seen in the case where the RERA authority ordered the builder to register the sale document after the buyer complained of not receiving it.

The third theme, Disputes Over Development Charges, indicates a troubling pattern where the builder often claimed that buyers had not paid development charges as a defense against providing sale documents or fulfilling other obligations. However, this defense did not typically stand, as evidenced by the outcomes where buyers were ultimately granted their requested documents or compensation.

The last theme, Execution of Orders and Directions, involves cases that were filed to enforce previous rulings or orders against the builder. These cases reflect an ongoing challenge in compelling the builder to adhere to legal commitments and may indicate broader issues with their operational compliance.

Common reasons for the builder’s losses in these cases include insufficient evidence to support their claims, failure to comply with regulatory requirements regarding sale documents, and neglect in responding adequately to buyer grievances. The patterns emerging from these disputes suggest that buyers were often driven to litigation by the builder's failure to meet contractual obligations, particularly concerning timely possession and proper documentation.

The analysis of cases filed by the builder Shubh Infrastructure, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the nature of its disputes and the underlying challenges faced in the real estate market.

One recurring theme was Regulatory Non-compliance. In particular, the builder faced penalties for not adhering to the strict guidelines set forth by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This was exemplified in a case where the builder was penalized for failing to display the RERA website in their advertisements, suggesting a lack of awareness or disregard for regulatory requirements.

Another theme was the Penalties for Advertising Violations, which directly correlates with the regulator's efforts to ensure transparency and proper communication in advertising. This reflects an overarching issue within the real estate sector, where many builders may overlook or misunderstand such mandatory guidelines, leading to financial repercussions.

The builder also contested claims regarding the Claim of Work Completion vs. Compliance. They asserted that the project was complete and even sought permission for society registration. However, the lack of compliance with advertising regulations indicates an overarching issue of misunderstanding or misreporting regarding project status to potential buyers.

In terms of Disputes over Permissions and Approvals, the builder's claims often revolved around their operational readiness from their perspective, while regulators and opposing parties highlighted discrepancies in adhering to necessary compliance protocols.

The common reasons for bringing cases to court typically revolved around contesting penalties imposed by regulatory authorities, disputing claims of project delays stemming from external factors, or challenging decisions made regarding land classification and use.

A significant pattern that emerged from the summaries is that these legal battles often stemmed from misinterpretations of the law or insufficient documentation to back up the builder's claims. The builder frequently lost its cases primarily due to insufficient evidence to prove compliance with established laws, failure to adhere to regulatory frameworks, or misunderstandings regarding the requirements to prove project completion. These factors highlight a critical need for builders to maintain a robust understanding of the regulations governing their operations, as well as to ensure accurate communications in their marketing endeavors.

Overall, the cases serve as a cautionary tale for both builders and buyers, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory regulations and maintaining transparency in the real estate sector.

This dictionary captures the recurring themes from the builder's cases and provides a detailed summary of the analysis of the cases they lost.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, Shubh Infrastructure, which it won, revealed the following insights into its legal battles and implications for buyers in the real estate market.

The cases predominantly revolved around themes such as Compliance with Regulatory Requirements, Disputes Over Project Completion, and Occupancy Certification Issues. Shubh Infrastructure was able to successfully contest claims that it had failed to meet legal requirements or obligations, mainly related to occupancy certificates and project timelines.

In many instances, the builder contested penalties imposed by regulatory bodies over reported delays or non-compliance. For example, in the case summarized, Shubh Infrastructure claimed timely project completion while the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority alleged reporting lapses on the builder's part. Such disputes highlight a common pattern where the builder sought to protect its interests against claims it deemed unsubstantiated.

The outcomes of these cases point towards several reasons behind the builder's victories. A recurring factor was the insufficient evidence presented by the opposing parties—often regulatory bodies—who failed to substantiate their claims adequately. Additionally, in the aforementioned case, the fact that occupancy certificates had been secured played a pivotal role in the court's favoring decision. This indicates that Shubh Infrastructure was not only diligent in its compliance but also well-positioned legally to defend against accusations, sometimes stemming from misunderstandings or exaggerated allegations by other parties.

Overall, this analysis sheds light on Shubh Infrastructure's reputation in the competitive real estate market. It illustrates that while there can be legitimate disputes, there is also a prevalence of unfounded claims that builders face. The ability of Shubh Infrastructure to successfully navigate legal challenges reflects its competence and robust operational practices, giving potential buyers reasons to consider their claims cautiously.

In conclusion, prospective buyers should approach real estate transactions with diligence and informed judgment. It's crucial to recognize that builders like Shubh Infrastructure can often effectively defend against unjust claims. This underscores the importance of seeking reliable information and not hastily forming judgments based solely on disputes, as these legal battles may not always reflect the true nature of a builder's performance or integrity.