SUPREME GROUP OF REAL ESTATE

Introduction

When considering a real estate investment, potential buyers often seek information about the builders behind the projects. One such builder is the Supreme Group of Real Estate, which has its presence in Madhya Pradesh. This post aims to analyze the performance of Supreme Group of Real Estate through its legal cases and complaints history, providing insights for prospective buyers.

Overview of Legal Issues

Supreme Group of Real Estate has faced legal scrutiny, evidenced by one complaint lodged against them. Here’s a brief overview of the case in which they did not succeed:

• Nature of Complaint: The applicant claimed the builder failed to register the plot and did not provide possession even after receiving payment.
• Response from Builder: The builder argued that the failure to register was due to technical issues and non-delivery of possession was resultant from a lack of funds.
• Verdict: The adjudicating officer ruled against the builder, ordering them to reimburse the applicant with the principal amount, interest, and additional compensation.

Analysis of Cases

Cases Lost

From the available information, it is evident that the sole case against Supreme Group of Real Estate resulted in a loss for the builder. The common factor in this instance revolves around failure to comply with the promises made regarding plot registration and possession. The case indicates a potential issue with operational execution or financial management, leading to unfulfilled commitments to buyers.

Cases Won

Interestingly, there are no cases listed as won by the Supreme Group of Real Estate. This lack of successful defenses in legal disputes raises concerns about the builder's overall reliability. With no victories in legal matters, potential buyers may want to thoroughly consider this lack of favorable outcomes when making their decision.

Conclusion

Based on the provided data, it appears that Supreme Group of Real Estate has encountered legal challenges without successfully defending against them. The single case won against the builder indicates some operational pitfalls, notably in project management and financial capabilities.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Research and Investigate: Before entering into any agreement with Supreme Group of Real Estate, prospective buyers should conduct thorough research. Look for feedback from current and past clients, and assess overall project completion timelines and quality.
2. Legal Safeguards: It is advisable to seek legal counsel to understand the terms and conditions clearly before signing any contracts. Knowledge of rights and obligations can help in safeguarding investments.
3. Payment Structures: An understanding of the payment structure and policies regarding delays or non-fulfillment should be clear prior to any financial commitment.
4. Visit Project Sites: If possible, visit existing projects to evaluate the quality and completion status firsthand.

General Tips for Selecting a Real Estate Builder

• Check Reviews and Ratings: Look for online reviews and ratings from previous customers.
• Evaluate Experience: Assess the builder’s experience in the real estate market and the number of projects completed.
• Inspect Projects: Visit completed projects to gauge construction quality and community features.
• Seek Transparency: Choose builders who provide clear and transparent documentation and are willing to discuss their processes openly.

In conclusion, while it is vital to evaluate Supreme Group of Real Estate carefully, maintaining a cautious approach when selecting any builder can significantly enhance the chances of a satisfying real estate investment.

Analysis of the cases filed against the builder Supreme Group of Real Estate, which it lost, revealed several key themes across the complaints made by the applicants. The cases primarily revolved around three critical issues: delayed possession claims, failure to register property, and insufficient funds for project completion.

The delayed possession claims predominantly arose from the builder's inability to hand over property to the buyers within the stipulated timelines. This was often attributed to various reasons, such as mismanagement, unforeseen circumstances, or a lack of adequate funding. The builders would frequently defend themselves by pointing out technicalities and external financial pressures, yet the core expectation of timely delivery was consistently unmet, leading to loss of trust and subsequent litigation.

Failure to register property was another significant concern, where buyers accused the builder of not formally registering their plots despite having received full payment. This raised serious legal and security implications for the buyers, as an unregistered property could lead to complications in ownership claims and asset management. The builder's defense often revolved around claims of technical issues, but the underlying responsibility to ensure proper documentation was not fulfilled, resulting in legal consequences.

Insufficient funds for project completion directly relates to the builder's admissions of financial strain, which impacted their ability to complete projects on schedule. This financial instability not only affected the timely acquisition of materials and labor but also influenced the builder's commitment to other essential responsibilities, such as property registration.

A pattern emerges from these cases where common triggers for litigation include:

• The builder's failure to meet contractual obligations, particularly concerning timely possession and property registration.
• Miscommunication or inadequate transparency regarding project delays and financial difficulties.
• A lack of accountability for actions that jeopardized the buyers' investments and trust.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to:

• Insufficient evidence to support their claims of technicalities and financial difficulties.
• Non-compliance with the legal requirement to register properties promptly after payment.
• Failure to follow interim directions that might have been laid out during the legal proceedings, further aggravating their position.

In conclusion, the analysis of these cases highlights the importance of diligence and transparency in real estate transactions. Buyers should be cautious and thoroughly vet builders before investment, considering historical performance and legal standings. Effective communication and adherence to legal frameworks are crucial for builders to avoid disputes and fulfill their commitments.