The analysis of the cases filed by SOBHA LIMITED that resulted in losses provides valuable insights into the primary disputes and legal challenges faced by the builder. A deeper look reveals several key themes under which these cases can be categorized.

1. Delayed Possession Claims: A recurring issue in the cases involves claims related to delayed possession. In these instances, respondents have sought compensation for the delayed delivery of their flats, citing significant delays that led to financial losses. The builder often faced penalties due to failure to adhere to agreed timelines, which resulted in monetary compensation being ordered by the tribunal.
2. Refund and Booking Amount Disputes: Several cases centered around disputes regarding the refund of booking amounts or earnest money. Complainants alleged that the builder failed to return these amounts despite requests, while the builder claimed compliance with contract stipulations. Often, cases concluded with the builder being ordered to repay amounts or dismissals based on consent or evidence showing refunds were already processed.
3. Disputes over Amenities and Project Plans: Another notable theme includes disputes regarding the project's compliance with promised amenities, such as swimming pools and other facilities that were either not delivered or fell short of expectations. In these cases, the builder contended that the complaints were unfounded due to defaulters not meeting payment obligations.
4. Non-compliance with Payment Installments: It is evident that many losses were tied to the issue of payment defaults, with the builder arguing they were not liable for claims by complainants who had failed to fulfill their financial obligations. This recurring reason highlights a potential communication gap regarding payment commitments between the builder and clients.
5. Non-Prosecution and Dismissed Cases: The builder also faced several cases that were dismissed due to the failure of the complainants to prosecute their claims or provide necessary evidence. While this might seem favorable for the builder in some instances, it underscores a pattern where respondents may have abandoned their case for various reasons, thus leading to an ambiguous record of claims that may still impact the builder's reputation.

Common triggers for litigation by SOBHA LIMITED appear to involve financial disputes, particularly concerning delays and refunds as well as delays in construction delivery attributed to external factors such as defaulters not making timely payments. Despite the builder often defending itself by claiming compliance and the fulfillment of terms, these cases collectively point toward a systematic pattern of disputes that could indicate underlying issues within project management and contract execution.

The common reasons leading to the builder's losses include insufficient evidence to substantiate claims, non-compliance with legal obligations, misunderstanding the contractual terms, and failures to follow through with interim requirements. Overall, these trends reveal not only the challenges faced by SOBHA LIMITED but also serve as cautionary tales for potential buyers and other stakeholders in the real estate market.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, SOBHA LIMITED, which it won, revealed the following information. The disputes can be grouped into several key themes that highlight the primary areas of contention between SOBHA LIMITED and various respondents.

1. Delayed Possession Claims: Several cases revolved around claims of delayed possession of residential units, where the builder contended that delays were not substantiated and that the allottees were not entitled to compensation. These cases often saw the builder effectively contesting penalties imposed due to claimed delays attributed to the developers.
2. RERA Non-compliance: There were claims regarding the builder's failure to register projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and provide necessary facilities like water supply. However, the builder argued that the completion dates of the projects predated the act's enforcement.
3. Disputes Over Compensation: The builder consistently defended against claims for compensation due to asserted delays, showing a pattern of disputes where the allottees claimed entitlement while the builder rebutted these claims by asserting timely delivery.
4. Contractual Payment Disputes: In one case, the plaintiff alleged not receiving the full contractual amount. The builder successfully argued for termination of the case on grounds of payment completeness.
5. Settlement Agreements: A notable theme involved the acceptance of joint memos as settlement agreements by the Lok Adalat, demonstrating the builder's ability to resolve disputes amicably in some scenarios.

Common triggers for these litigations often stem from buyers' misunderstandings or misinterpretations of delivery schedules, regulatory requirements, and contractual obligations. This pattern suggests that many disputes may arise from a lack of information or transparency during the purchase process.

SOBHA LIMITED often won these cases due to several reasons, including insufficient evidence presented by the opposing parties, non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements by the claimants, and the ambiguity or lack of clarity in the claims made by the homebuyers. The builder was adept in defending itself against exaggerated claims or false accusations, underscoring its strength in legal matters pertaining to real estate.

This analysis reflects positively on the builder's reputation within the broader real estate market. It illustrates the reality that buyers can sometimes make unfounded accusations against builders, which leads to necessary legal actions. However, SOBHA LIMITED has established a robust track record for effectively defending itself from such claims.

For potential buyers, this serves as a crucial reminder to conduct thorough research and make informed decisions. While legitimate disputes exist within the real estate sector, the experience of SOBHA LIMITED in successfully addressing and disputing accusations provides insight into the builder’s reliability. As consumers, it is essential to appreciate the complexities of such allegations and seek credible information when evaluating a builder's reputation.

An analysis of the cases filed against SOBHA LIMITED, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The disputes can be grouped under several common themes, reflecting the nature of complaints often raised by buyers and the outcomes in favor of the builder.

1. Delayed Possession Claims: Several complaints revolved around the delays in completing and handing over properties, where the builder successfully defended itself by pointing out that possession was delivered within the stipulated timeframe, or that delays were due to the complainants' actions.
2. Refund Disputes: Many cases involved requests for refunds of booking amounts, where the builder was able to demonstrate compliance with refund policies and settlement agreements. In many instances, the complaints were dismissed as the plaintiffs had either accepted refunds or withdrawn their cases.
3. Non-Compliance Allegations: Allegations of non-compliance with municipal orders or promised amenities were common, yet the builder countered these claims by evidencing compliance with regulations and contractual obligations.
4. Withdrawal of Complaints: A significant number of cases ended with the plaintiffs withdrawing their complaints, indicating a possible realization that their claims were not substantiated by sufficient evidence.
5. Settlement of Disputes: Many disputes were settled amicably before reaching a formal judgment, showing the willingness of both parties to resolve issues without prolonged legal battles.
6. Miscommunication or Settled Agreements: In multiple instances, allegations arose from miscommunication or claims that had already been settled, demonstrating the importance of clear correspondence between buyers and builders.

The common reasons these cases were brought to court generally included contesting perceived penalties, misinterpretations of agreements, or requests for refunds that the plaintiffs felt were not honored. Patterns indicate that many misunderstandings or false expectations led to legal actions.

The builder's success in these cases stems from presenting strong defenses where evidence of adequate refunds, compliance with regulations, and procedural adherence by the builder was clear. In many situations, the opposing parties lacked sufficient documentation or failed to follow proper legal procedures.

This analysis speaks volumes about SOBHA LIMITED's reputation in the real estate market. It is evident that while buyers may have legitimate grievances, there are instances where claims are unfounded, leading to unnecessary legal conflicts. The builder has showcased a strong record in defending against unjust claims, highlighting a commitment to legal and professional standards.

In conclusion, potential buyers are advised to conduct thorough due diligence and seek reliable information before forming opinions about a builder's reputation. While disputes are a reality in the real estate market, cases like these illustrate that reputable builders such as SOBHA LIMITED often navigate these challenges effectively. Buyers should approach claims with a discerning eye to make informed decisions.