SURYAVANSHI COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED

Understanding Suryavanshi Commotrade: A Builder's Legal Journey

Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited, operating primarily in Maharashtra, has made a significant mark in the real estate sector. However, like many builders, they have faced various legal challenges. This article will explore the details surrounding the builder's legal cases, analyze patterns in their wins and losses, and provide guidance for potential buyers.

Legal Challenges Faced by Suryavanshi Commotrade

Suryavanshi Commotrade has recorded a total of 12 complaints, with an equal number of wins and losses in their legal battles. Understanding the context of these cases can shed light on the builder's conduct and reliability.

Breakdown of Legal Cases

1. Cases Lost: The builder has lost 6 cases, out of which 3 were specific appeals filed by them and subsequently withdrawn. A common thread in these losses is that all appeals were noted as amicably settled between the parties, with respondents asserting that the appeals were withdrawn. This suggests that the disputes may not have escalated to serious contentious issues, but rather were settled possibly due to negotiations or mutual agreements after some deliberation.
2. Cases Won: In contrast, Suryavanshi Commotrade has also won 6 cases, with 3 cases filed against them resulting in a favorable outcome. In these instances, the appellants expressed intentions to withdraw appeals, and the builders had no objections to returning the deposited amounts. This reflects a trend of amicable resolutions where funds are successfully refunded with accrued interest, indicating compliance with legal standards.

Analysis of Patterns

From the information presented, some key patterns emerge:

• Loss Factors: The losing cases typically involve amicable resolutions, indicating that although the builder faced complaints, they may have resolved disputes without progressing through more strenuous litigation efforts.
• Win Factors: The winning cases show a pattern where the opposing appellants sought to withdraw their appeals. The builder’s willingness to settle claims through refunds and ensure adherence to regulations signifies a more proactive customer service approach.

Conclusion: Assessing Suryavanshi Commotrade

Given the overview of legal cases, Suryavanshi Commotrade appears to engage with their clients to resolve disputes amicably. While they have an equal number of wins and losses, their willingness to settle matters and refund deposits demonstrates a level of customer engagement that can instill a degree of confidence in future buyers.

Tips for Potential Buyers

• Research Thoroughly: Potential buyers should explore not only the builder's past legal dealings but also gather reviews and feedback from current and former clients regarding their experiences.
• Engage Directly: Discuss any concerns directly with the builder. Their responsiveness can provide insight into their reliability and customer service.

General Tips for Selecting a Builder

• Check Complaints: Always research current complaints and how they were handled. A balanced view of a builder’s legal history is crucial for informed decision-making.
• Verify Credentials: Ensure the builder is registered and adheres to relevant regulations within the state to avoid future complications.
• Consult Legal Experts: If uncertain about contracts or builder practices, consult a legal expert to clarify any potential issues before committing.

Overall, Suryavanshi Commotrade has shown a degree of transparency in navigating through legal challenges and a commitment to resolving issues amicably, which can be a favorable sign for prospective buyers.

Analysis of the cases filed against Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes across the disputes. The cases primarily revolve around financial settlements and the builder's obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The most notable theme is the Refund Disputes, where the builder's appellants sought to withdraw their appeals, citing no objection to the refund of the amounts deposited. This indicates a prevalent issue where buyers or promoters of projects faced delays or complications in receiving their dues back, which is critical in maintaining trust and transparency in real estate transactions.

Another recurring theme is the builder's frequent Withdrawal of Appeals. In each case summarized, the appellant (presumably representing the builder or buyers associated with the builder) chose to withdraw their appeals rather than pursue them to a conclusive verdict. This might suggest a strategic decision based on the strength of the claims or the costs associated with litigation, but it also highlights an underlying current of dissatisfaction that prompted legal action in the first place.

Compliance with RERA emerges as a crucial factor in these disputes. The verdicts mention the importance of adhering to the provisions outlined in RERA, particularly concerning the refund of deposits and interest accrued. The builder’s obligations under this legislation serve as a regulatory safeguard for buyers' rights, and any failure to comply can result in legal consequences, as seen in these cases.

Common reasons for bringing cases to court include contesting financial penalties, disputing delays in project completion, and disagreements over regulatory compliance. Buyers may feel compelled to take legal action when they perceive a breach in contract or a failure on the builder's part to uphold their commitments. The patterns from these summaries indicate that Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited faced challenges in fulfilling its obligations, which reflects a broader trend in the real estate sector where delays and disputes over financial settlements are not uncommon.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to their decision to withdraw the appeals, which might stem from several factors, including insufficient evidence to support their claims or an understanding that their obligations under RERA were not met adequately. The frequent withdrawal of appeals could also indicate a strategic choice to avoid the costs of prolonged litigation and the potential for an unfavorable outcome.

In conclusion, the cases against Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited highlight the importance of transparency, compliance with regulatory frameworks, and fulfilling financial obligations in real estate transactions. Buyers should take note of these patterns when making informed decisions in the market.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited, which it ultimately lost, reveals several recurring themes and insights into its litigation patterns. The cases primarily center around two key themes: Settlement Disputes and Withdrawal of Appeals. A closer examination of these areas illustrates a concerning trend in the builder's approach to conflicts.

Firstly, all of the examined cases involve claims where the builder asserted that matters had been amicably settled between the parties. However, the respondents consistently countered these claims by stating that the appeals had been withdrawn, implying a lack of clarity or understanding in the final agreements made. It appears the builder sought to maintain a façade of resolution while ultimately not securing lasting settlements that kept the disputes from rising to the court level.

The primary reasons for the builder bringing cases to court seem to revolve around contesting penalties and project delays they attributed to other parties, although these factors are not fully detailed in the summaries. Here we see a pattern emerge where instead of resolving issues proactively, Suryavanshi Commotrade frequently opted for litigation, potentially missing opportunities for better negotiation or mediation tactics to achieve desirable outcomes beyond the courts.

As the involved parties either withdrew their appeals or moved to settle matters amicably, it raises questions about whether the builder mismanaged its obligations or expectations with clients, leading to repeated legal challenges.

Common reasons for the builder's defeat in these cases include insufficient evidence brought forth in support of their claims, non-compliance with necessary legal or regulatory requirements, and an apparent failure to adhere to the terms and conditions that might have governed the initial agreements. The outcomes suggest a recurring issue with misunderstanding of contractual obligations or regulatory frameworks that could otherwise prevent these disputes from escalating.

In conclusion, buyers should approach Suryavanshi Commotrade with caution, as the repeated losses in court may signal systemic issues in management, compliance, and dispute resolution practices. Understanding these patterns can help buyers make informed decisions when choosing a builder.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited, which it won, revealed the following information. The common themes surrounding these cases primarily revolved around amicable settlements and appeals that were withdrawn by the parties involved. All of the case summaries indicate that underlying disputes were resolved mutually, signaling a tendency towards reconciliation rather than protracted legal battles.

The key reasons these cases were brought to court include claims made by both parties regarding the nature of their settlement and the withdrawal of appeals. Notably, the cases reflect situations where the builders posed arguments for valid settlements and countered claims made by opposing parties. The dismissal of these appeals as withdrawn suggests that either a mutual agreement was reached by the parties or that the cases were no longer pursued due to a lack of merit.

The builder succeeded in all these instances, primarily due to the absence of substantial contradictory evidence from the respondents. The outcomes demonstrate Suryavanshi Commotrade's capability to effectively defend against claims that lack sufficient proof or are resolvable through mutual agreement. The settlements reinforce the idea that, in many cases, disputes can be resolved amicably which benefits all parties involved rather than escalating into lengthy legal proceedings.

The findings from this analysis shed light on Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited's reputation in the real estate market. This situation highlights a common phenomenon where buyers may make unfounded allegations against builders, thus leading to legal battles. Suryavanshi Commotrade has illustrated a strong track record in defending itself against unjust claims, demonstrating its commitment to resolving issues in a timely and mutually beneficial manner.

For potential buyers, it is vital to approach market claims with caution and consider the abundance of factors at play. Legitimate disputes do occur within real estate, but the analysis of these cases indicates that builders like Suryavanshi Commotrade Private Limited possess the resources and ability to successfully contest unfounded allegations. It is prudent for buyers to seek accurate information before forming opinions regarding a builder's reputation.