The analysis of the cases filed by the builder SUPTECH Limited, which it lost, reveals key insights about the nature of disputes and the recurring challenges faced by the builder. The disputes can be grouped into several common themes, such as Compliance with Legal Provisions, Delayed Possession Claims, Requests for Extension of Time, Penalties for Regulatory Violations, and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions.

1. Compliance with Legal Provisions: Many cases revolved around the builder's failure to adhere to the provisions set forth in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The builder frequently claimed compliance but often fell short of meeting the legal requirements, resulting in dismissed appeals.
2. Delayed Possession Claims: A significant number of disputes involved allegations of late possession. Allottees contended that construction was lagging and claimed late delivery possession charges. The builder's defense often rested on the argument that the due date for possession had not yet elapsed, yet these claims were unsuccessful in court.
3. Requests for Extension of Time: The builder commonly sought extensions for time to deposit requisite amounts or to comply with legal requirements, citing pending appeals in higher courts. However, these requests were frequently denied due to the lack of evidence supporting the need for such extensions.
4. Penalties for Regulatory Violations: The builder faced penalties for failing to register projects properly and for advertising without appropriate approvals. Such regulatory missteps led to financial repercussions that could have been avoided with better compliance practices.
5. Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions: Overall, the builder’s issues typically stemmed from a continuous non-compliance with mandatory provisions. Multiple cases emphasized the builder's failure to deposit requisite amounts or comply with legislative mandates, leading to case dismissals and penalties.

Through these disputes, a pattern emerges where the builder appears to contest penalties or disputes that typically are attributed to third-party factors, such as the lateness of authority responses or classifications. Nonetheless, their inability to solidly back their claims, along with frequent failures to adhere to the legal framework, resulted in poor outcomes.

In conclusion, the cases suggest that for buyers considering future dealings with Supertech Limited, close scrutiny of their commitments to compliance and their track record regarding timely project delivery will be essential. The detailed legalities and the complexity of the disputes highlight the importance of working with builders who prioritize regulatory adherence and timely communication.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, SUPERTECH Limited, which it won, revealed some interesting insights.

The complaints can broadly be categorized into several themes, including:

• Delayed Possession Claims: Several cases were centered around claims of delayed possession of flats. However, in these instances, the builder successfully demonstrated that the projects were registered and delineated due dates for possession, thus dispelling claims of delay.
• Withdrawal of Complaints: A notable number of cases were withdrawn by the complainants, either with the intent to file fresh complaints or due to mutual settlements. This indicates that many claims may not have been pursued vigorously or were not substantiated adequately.
• Moratorium-related Cases: Multiple cases were affected by a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which led to cases being kept in abeyance. This often demonstrates the complexities surrounding financial or legal constraints rather than direct actions from the builder.
• Settlement Agreements: Many complaints concluded with amicable settlements between parties. In instances where any disputes were settled, it reflects a willingness to resolve grievances outside of the courtroom, showcasing the builder's flexibility in addressing buyers' issues.
• Dismissals for Lack of Prosecution: Cases dismissed due to the inability of claimants to pursue their complaints signal a lack of preparedness or seriousness in the claims being made.
• Claims of Non-compliance: There were also claims regarding the builder not fulfilling its obligations under construction agreements or state regulations. However, these claims were typically countered with assertions that the complainants lacked standing or that issues had been resolved.
• Complaints about Construction Quality: Some complaints involved allegations of substandard construction quality or tardy work progression but were often dismissed as the builder substantiated that the projects were compliant with regulatory demands.

The patterns shown in this analysis suggest that many of the cases brought forth against SUPERTECH Limited stemmed from buyers contesting penalties or expressing dissatisfaction over project timelines. In numerous instances, the builder won the cases due to various factors, such as insufficient evidence from the claimants, misinterpretations of entitlements under the law, or simple misunderstandings that led to exaggerated claims.

This analysis serves as an insight into SUPERTECH Limited's reputation in the broader real estate market. It suggests a robust ability for the builder to defend itself against unjust or exaggerated allegations. Buyers can sometimes file complaints out of frustration or miscommunication with builders, leading to potentially baseless legal disputes.

In conclusion, it is crucial for potential buyers to conduct thorough research and make informed decisions when engaging with real estate transactions. While there are legitimate grievances within the industry, this review of SUPERTECH Limited's legal history indicates that the builder is well-equipped to navigate disputes and defend against unjust claims. Careful consideration and diligent inquiry into a builder’s reputation can help buyers form balanced opinions backed by facts.