SKYLINE DEVELOPERS logo

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS

3.8/5 (3 cases analyzed)
  • States Active In: Gujarat, Karnataka
CINNot Available
Year EstablishedNot Available
AddressNot Available
Company StatusNot Available

Overall Case Outcomes

Introduction

In the ever-evolving real estate landscape, choosing the right developer is crucial for a hassle-free property investment. This blog post takes a closer look at Skyline Developers, a builder with projects in Gujarat and Karnataka. Here, we dive into their legal challenges, analyze patterns in their case history, and provide tips for potential buyers.

Skyline Developers: An Overview

Skyline Developers has faced 3 complaints in total, all of which have resulted in lost cases. While the builder operates in two Indian states, the presence of legal issues raises concerns about its credibility in fulfilling project commitments.

Legal Case Details

Cases Lost

The builder has lost all three cases filed against them. Common factors in these cases include:

  1. Failure to Provide Possession and Documentation: In multiple instances, complainants reported that the builder did not provide the possession of their units or necessary documents like the registered conveyance …

Unlock Full Report & Analysis

Cases Lost by Builder (When Defending)

Yearly Trend for these Cases

Common Topics
Delayed Possession Claims Failure to Execute Conveyance Deed Compensation Disputes for Non-Completion of Projects Refund and Compensation Issues for Advance Payments

Analysis of the cases filed against Skyline Developers, where the builder lost, revealed significant insights into the common themes and disputes associated with their projects. The cases could be broadly categorized into four types: delayed possession claims, failure to execute conveyance deeds, compensation disputes for non-completion of projects, and refund and compensation issues for advance payments.

Many of the claims made by the complainants revolved around the builder's inability to provide timely possession of units or to fulfill their commitments regarding conveyance deeds. For instance, in one case, the complainant had paid the remaining amount for Unit No. D/75, yet the builder had not provided the registered conveyance deed or possession, leading the authority to direct the builder to take corrective action.

Many plaintiffs also sought compensation due to the builder's failure to complete projects on schedule. The builder often attributed these delays to unforeseen circumstances, but the authorities did …

Unlock Full Report & Analysis

Individual case details available for subscribers.

Builder Reviews

No reviews for this builder yet. Be the first one to share your thoughts!


Submit Your Review