| CIN | Not Available |
|---|---|
| Year Established | Not Available |
| Address | Not Available |
| Company Status | Not Available |
Introduction
In the competitive world of real estate, making informed decisions is crucial for potential buyers. One such builder that has gained attention in Madhya Pradesh is Soham Construction. However, before engaging with any builder, it’s essential to examine their track record, particularly concerning legal disputes and customer satisfaction. This blog explores Soham Construction's performance based on a recent case, and provides valuable insights for prospective buyers.
Overview of Soham Construction
Soham Construction has a relatively low number of complaints, with only one filed against them. However, it's important to note that they have lost this lone case. This raises concerns that potential clients should carefully consider.
Legal Case Details
- Type of Complaint:
The complaint involved a disagreement over the calculation of the super built-up area. The applicant claimed that the area was miscalculated at 45.62% and sought a revision to 33.24%. - Builder's Position:
In response, Soham Construction maintained that the original calculation of 45.62% was correct, emphasizing that the applicant had accepted these terms and conditions during the tender submission. - Final Verdict:
The decision favored the respondent (Soham Construction), as the authority upheld their claim of the super built-up area.
Analysis of Case Outcomes
Patterns in Lost Cases:
The solitary case that Soham Construction lost indicates a potential problem in transparency regarding area specifications and adherence to agreed terms. The nature of the complaint suggests that buyers might need to scrutinize contract details further to ensure clarity on technical aspects, especially regarding measurements that affect pricing.
Patterns in Won Cases:
Soham Construction has no recorded cases won, with the single legal encounter resulting in a loss. This suggests that either the builder has been fortunate enough to avoid further disputes, or there might be an underlying trend that has discouraged customers from pursuing complaints beyond one notable incident.
Conclusion
Given the single legal case resulting in a loss, potential buyers should approach Soham Construction with caution. While the number of complaints is minimal, the nature of the existing complaint signals the importance of due diligence when considering this builder.
Tips for Potential Buyers
- Review Contracts Thoroughly: Always examine the fine print concerning property specifications, including super built-up areas to avoid disputes later.
- Seek Clarity on Measurements: Ensure that all measurements and terms are clearly defined and agreed upon before signing any contracts.
- Consider Legal Guidance: Consulting with a legal expert can provide insights on contract implications and help navigate any ambiguous terms.
General Tips for Selecting a Builder
- Research Reputation: Look into the builder’s track record through reviews, customer testimonials, and complaint records.
- Evaluate Local Projects: Investigate ongoing and completed projects to assess the quality of work and client satisfaction.
- Ask for Recommendations: Seek recommendations from acquaintances or real estate professionals who are familiar with the builder's work.
In conclusion, while Soham Construction operates with a manageable number of complaints, potential buyers are strongly encouraged to conduct thorough research and to seek clarity in all contractual aspects before making a commitment. Engaging with a builder that prioritizes transparency can lead to a more satisfying home-buying experience.
No builder reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Here you’ll find cases where the builder sued others but didn’t win. We’ve included a simple summary and key takeaways from each case.
Analysis of the cases filed by the builder Soham Construction, which it lost, revealed insights about the nature of disputes that frequently arise in the construction and real estate sector. The cases primarily revolved around two common themes: disputes over the calculation of the super built-up area and claims of misrepresentation or incorrect calculations.
In the analyzed case, the builder contested the calculated super built-up area of a property, claiming it was miscalculated at 45.62% and sought to reduce it to 33.24%. Meanwhile, the respondent defended the original calculation, asserting that it adhered to the agreed terms and conditions accepted by the builder at the start of the project. This indicates a tendency for disputes to arise over the interpretation of contractual agreements, especially concerning spatial metrics that are pivotal to property valuation and buyer expectations.
The builder commonly brought cases to court, likely driven by the need to contest penalties, secure favorable outcomes on disputed calculations, or address project challenges perceived as out of their control. Such motivations stem from potential monetary losses or reputational damage due to contractual disputes. However, the summarized case demonstrates a notable trend where disagreements about technical calculations—particularly those involving the project specifications and acceptance criteria—serve as common triggers for litigation.
The reasons for the builder's loss in these disputes frequently point to insufficient evidence backing their claims. In the highlighted case, Soham Construction was unable to provide strong evidence that supported their assertion of miscalculation. Additionally, the builder's failure to account for the agreement they entered into regarding the project specifications played a crucial role in the verdict, revealing potential weaknesses in their understanding of contractual obligations and legal frameworks surrounding property specifications. This case suggests that builders may end up in unfavorable positions in court when they do not comply with contractual terms or when their cases lack substantiated claims during disputes. Therefore, homebuyers should be cautious and perform thorough due diligence when engaging with builders, ensuring they understand the terms of agreements and the implications of project specifications.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 749-8-8 | Madhya Pradesh | The applicant sought relief for a discrepancy in … | ["Super built-up ar… | {"appellant_claim": "The applicant claimed that t… | Soham Construction | Indore Development … | https://www.rera.mp.gov.in/upload/complaint_files/111614166850.pdf |