SURANA CONSTRUCTION

Introduction

Surana Construction, a builder operating in Maharashtra, has become a focal point for scrutiny due to a significant number of legal complaints. Out of 93 total cases filed against them, 61 ended up being complaints and litigations that brought to light various issues. This blog post aims to analyze the patterns in the legal outcomes associated with Surana Construction, shedding light on what potential buyers might consider before making a purchase decision.

Overview of Legal Challenges

Case Summary

• Total Complaints: 61
• Cases Won: 32
• Cases Lost: 29

Surana Construction has faced considerable legal challenges. Losing nearly half of the total cases filed against them indicates a deficient level of compliance with legal requirements and regulations, particularly those established under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Patterns in Lost Cases

The 29 cases that Surana Construction lost largely revolved around a recurring theme – failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement established under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. Most of the lost cases share a common narrative:

• Compliance Issues: In nearly all instances, the builder claimed they had made a compliance report after pre-depositing amounts. However, respondents contended that the builder failed to fully pre-deposit as required, leading to dismissals of appeals.
• Neglecting Responsibilities: The consistent reference to the builder's non-compliance signals a troubling pattern of neglecting regulatory obligations and procedural steps necessary for successful appeals.

Patterns in Won Cases

Despite a considerable number of lost cases, Surana Construction managed to win 32 cases, revealing some favorable discrepancies:

• Flexibility in Compliance: The successful cases often indicate that the builder was either granted extensions for compliance or that the conditions for compliance were not firmly contested by the respondent. For instance, several outcomes included granted prayers for additional time frames to comply with financial requirements.
• Evidence Submission: In some instances, the builder appears to have provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of having served notices to respondents and complying with deposit requests, which contributed positively to winning the case.

Conclusion

Based on the provided data, Surana Construction exhibits a mixed track record. The builder's propensity to lose cases due to compliance failures raises red flags for potential buyers. It is crucial for homebuyers to approach this builder with caution.

Tips for Potential Buyers

1. Research Thoroughness: Before proceeding with any real estate investment, thoroughly research past legal records of the builder to identify any prevailing patterns of issues.
2. Demand Transparency: Request clarity on the builder's compliance with RERA and ensure they provide necessary documentation regarding approvals and deposits.
3. Consult Reviews and Testimonials: Look for reviews from other buyers who have dealt with Surana Construction. Their experiences may offer valuable insights.

General Tips When Selecting a Builder

• Check Credentials: Always verify the builder's license, registration, and whether they are compliant with local laws and regulations.
• Evaluate Previous Projects: Inspect completed projects for quality, design, and adherence to timelines.
• Understanding Contracts: Ensure that you comprehend all terms and requirements laid out in purchasing agreements before signing.

By considering the insights provided about Surana Construction, potential buyers can better navigate their purchasing decisions and safeguard their investments.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Surana Construction, which were ultimately lost, reveals several recurring themes that highlight the builder's primary disputes. One major theme is the 'Non-compliance with Regulatory Requirements,' specifically under the RERA Act, where the builder consistently failed to adhere to the necessary legal obligations, resulting in dismissals of appeals. Generally, the builder's cases can be grouped into various categories, including 'Failure to Pre-deposit Amounts,' where it was claimed repeatedly that the builder did not comply fully with the mandated financial pre-deposit, as required by RERA provisions. Another noteworthy category relates to 'Review of Rejected Complaints,' indicating that the builder sought to contest previously dismissed allegations without fulfilling necessary protocols. Finally, there were multiple cases regarding 'Disputes over Compliance Reports,' where the builder claimed to have filed these reports, while the opposition consistently argued that required filings were not made or incomplete, contributing to further litigation.

The builder typically approached the courts to contest penalties and decisions that adversely impacted their operations, as seen in the commonality of disputes regarding compliance with regulatory orders and the challenges brought forth against financial obligations imposed by the governing bodies. A remarkable pattern is apparent; many cases arose from misunderstandings or misinterpretations of legal requirements, particularly around the pre-deposit of amounts.

The reasons leading to the builder's losses predominantly stem from their inability to provide adequate evidence supporting their claims, especially in light of the opposing party's assertions that they failed to meet regulatory demands. Furthermore, failure to execute interim compliance requirements perpetuated the builder's setbacks in court. Other underlying causes for losing these cases revolved around strict interpretations of RERA stipulations and the builder's disengagement with the requisite procedural steps that might have favored their legal standing. This repeated pattern of litigation losses underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory obligations and understanding the nuances of real estate laws when engaging in construction and sales activities.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, Surana Construction, which it won, revealed the following information. The cases can be grouped into several recurring themes that highlight the nature of disputes involving this builder.

Firstly, there are cases related to 'Service of Notices and Compliance', where the builder consistently asserts that it has served notices to the respondents, while responses often indicate a lack of receipt.

Secondly, there are numerous 'Request for Time Extensions to Deposit Amounts', reflecting the builder's attempts to secure additional time to comply with financial obligations.

Thirdly, 'Regulatory Compliance Under RERA' is a recurring topic, where the builder is often directed to deposit amounts as per the stipulations of the RERA framework.

Additionally, disputes often arise over 'Disputes Over Document Receipt', highlighting communication gaps that result in legal contention.

Finally, several cases revolve around 'Affidavit of Service Issues', showcasing how complications in serving legal documents can lead to disputes in the court system.

The builder commonly brings these cases to court in response to claims of non-compliance with orders or penalties levied by the authorities.

A notable pattern that emerges is the builder contesting penalties or losing claims attributed to perceived delays, often contending that these were due to issues outside their control or a lack of communication from other parties involved.

Interestingly, Surana Construction has been successful in its litigation efforts for several reasons.

In many instances, the opposing parties have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims or have failed to comply with the stipulated regulatory frameworks.

For example, cases were won based on non-compliance with the provision to Section 43(5) of RERA or misunderstandings regarding service of documents, pointing to the builder's effective defense mechanisms against exaggerated or false claims from buyers or other parties.

This analysis paints a nuanced picture of Surana Construction’s reputation in the real estate market.

It underscores a reality where buyers may sometimes make unfounded accusations, leading to legal disputes that burden both parties. Surana Construction's track record of successfully defending itself underscores its operational integrity and adherence to legal standards in the face of challenges.

In conclusion, potential buyers are advised to exercise due diligence and make informed decisions.

While legitimate disputes exist within the real estate arena, the evidence presented through these cases demonstrates that builders like Surana Construction often prevail against unjust claims. Buyers are encouraged to carefully evaluate claims and seek reliable information before forming opinions about a builder's credibility.