SRI SAI PHOENIX INBUILDERS

Introduction

In the realm of real estate, selecting a trustworthy builder is a critical decision for potential homeowners. Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders, a builder operating in Madhya Pradesh, has garnered attention due to its involvement in legal disputes. This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the builder's track record based on available data, shedding light on their complaint history, legal outcomes, and offering insights for prospective buyers.

Overview of Complaints and Legal Outcomes

Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders has faced one complaint to date. While the builder has been involved in legal proceedings, they have not successfully won any cases against them, with one case lost. This points to a concerning trend about their credibility and customer satisfaction in relation to contractual obligations.

Details of the Legal Case

The only legal case in which the builder was involved can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant's Claim: The applicant claimed that the builder failed to complete the construction work within the agreed timeframe and did not provide possession of the property as promised.
• Respondent's Claim: The builder countered that the applicant had not paid the full consideration amount, and attributed the delay in possession to unforeseen circumstances.
• Final Verdict: The adjudicating officer ruled against the builder, ordering them to pay the applicant the consideration amount along with interest at an 8% annual rate.

Analysis of Legal Patterns

Losses Experienced

Based on the available data, the major common factor evident in the case lost by Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders appears to revolve around issues related to delays in project completion and possession of properties. The builder's argument about payment deficiencies on the part of the applicant did not suffice to overturn the verdict, signaling a need for stricter adherence to contractual timelines and commitments.

Wins Experienced

Although it's noted that the builder has no successful legal outcomes (0 cases won), the single case presented shows that despite their arguments, they were unable to justify their delayed service effectively, emphasizing a pattern that highlights poor management in meeting customer expectations.

Conclusion

Given the legal complications and the builder's unsatisfactory record in court, potential buyers must approach Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders with caution. The fact that they have lost their sole legal case raises significant red flags about their reliability and the quality of service provided to clients.

Tips for Potential Buyers

• Thorough Research: Investigate the builder’s background, including any customer reviews and testimonials, prior to making a decision.
• Documentation Review: Scrutinize all contracts and agreements to ensure that timelines, payment schedules, and possession dates are clearly laid out and realistic.
• Legal Safeguards: Consider involving a legal advisor to review documentation and provide guidance on the implications of the contract.

General Tips for Selecting a Builder

• Check Credentials: Ensure that the builder holds the necessary licenses and registrations to operate in your area.
• Review Past Projects: Look into the builder’s completed projects to evaluate the quality of their work.
• Engage with Previous Clients: If possible, speak with past customers to get firsthand accounts of their experiences, as this can provide invaluable insight into the builder’s reliability.

In summary, while Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders operates in Madhya Pradesh, their legal record suggests a cautious approach when considering them for future construction projects.

Analysis of the cases filed against Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders, where the builder lost, revealed several key themes across the disputes. The cases primarily revolved around delayed possession claims, often interconnected with disputes over payment and consideration, and ultimately resulting in penalties for project delays.

The delayed possession claims typically arose from the builder's failure to complete construction work within the agreed-upon timeframe, which is a recurring theme in real estate litigation. In the case summarized, the applicant claimed that the builder did not provide possession of the property as scheduled, which reflects a common concern among buyers regarding adherence to timelines.

Disputes over payment and consideration constituted another significant theme. Builders often face the challenge of balancing their need for complete compensation with the obligation to deliver timely results. In this case, the builder contended that the delay in possession was due to the applicant's incomplete payment, highlighting a frequent point of contention in contractual relationships.

The adjudicating officer's decision to penalize the builder by ordering the payment of the consideration amount with interest at an 8% per annum rate demonstrates a pattern where builders may face financial repercussions due to delays attributed to their actions. This penalty reflects a broader trend in which courts often side with buyers when it comes to clear contractual obligations regarding timely delivery and payment.

The common reasons for the builder's losses in these cases center around inadequate justification for delays and insufficient compliance with the terms of sale. Builders often lose when they cannot provide robust evidence that delays are caused by unforeseen circumstances beyond their control or when they fail to meet clear payment obligations. Furthermore, a lack of understanding of their legal obligations regarding project timelines and payment requirements can lead to legal misunderstandings that ultimately result in legal losses.

In conclusion, the cases against Sri Sai Phoenix Inbuilders highlight the importance for builders to adhere to timelines, fulfill their obligations, and maintain transparent communication with buyers regarding payments and expectations. For potential buyers, these cases serve as a reminder to conduct thorough research into a builder's legal history and operational integrity before committing to a purchase.