CIN | Not Available |
---|---|
Year Established | Not Available |
Address | Not Available |
Company Status | Not Available |
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 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.
The builder has lost all three cases filed against them. Common factors in these cases include:
Despite the negative outcomes of the lost cases, there are insights gleaned from the cases won, where the builder had to fulfill some obligations, albeit not winning in the traditional sense:
Skyline Developers has a troubling track record, marked by legal disputes and complaints leading to lost cases. Their frequent inability to provide possession and fulfill contractual obligations raises red flags for prospective buyers. While they may claim to uphold certain agreements, the authority's repeated rulings against them suggest a lack of reliability.
In summary, buying a property is a significant investment, and understanding the implications of your choice, particularly with builders like Skyline Developers, can save you time, money, and undue stress.
No builder reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Here you’ll find cases where others sued the builder, and the builder lost. We’ve included a simple summary and key takeaways from each case.
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 not accept this defense, emphasizing the need for builders to adhere to timelines and clear communications with buyers. Accordingly, plaintiffs were often awarded compensation at a rate of 2% interest on their loans or advance payments.
A pattern emerges from these summaries: the builder’s litigation often stems from a failure to meet contractual obligations, provide timely updates, or return funds on demand. Common triggers for these disputes include the builder's cancellation of bookings without valid reasons, non-compliance with the RERA Act, and inadequate transparency regarding project timelines and expectations.
The builder lost these cases primarily due to insufficient evidence supporting their claims of valid cancellations or project delays. Additionally, their failure to comply with legal requirements, such as executing conveyance deeds, and their inability to provide possession within a reasonable timeframe were critical factors in the authorities' decisions. Overall, these cases highlight the importance for builders to prioritize clear communication and adherence to regulatory frameworks to avoid disputes with buyers.
This table provides an analysis of individual cases that contributed to the summary above. Click on any row to expand and view complete details, and use the "Show More" button to load additional rows as needed.
Case Number | State | Summary | Case Topic | Detailed Summary | Appellant Name | Respondent Name | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMP/170911/0000061 | Karnataka | The plaintiff filed a complaint against the devel… | ["Delay Compensatio… | {"appellant_claim": "The plaintiff claimed that t… | Skyline Developers | https://rera.karnataka.gov.in/reraDocument?DOC=406415 | |
CMP/170909/0000057 | Karnataka | The plaintiff, RMALATHI, filed a complaint agains… | ["Delay in possessi… | {"appellant_claim": "The plaintiff claimed that t… | Skyline Developers | https://rera.karnataka.gov.in/reraDocument?DOC=406410 | |
CMP/Ahmedabad/21102… | Gujarat | The complainant, Shri. Omprakash Kapildev Pandey,… | ["Registered Convey… | {"appellant_claim": "The complainant claimed that… | Shri. Omprakash Kap… | Skyline Developers | https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1CHMFJgYNNLlUUyswCAgARt9Zoj6vYP43 |