Analysis of the cases filed against Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Private Limited, which the builder lost, reveals several key themes across the various disputes.

The cases can be broadly categorized into three types: non-compliance with RERA regulations, penalties for project delays, and incomplete documentation and compliance. The first type pertains to the builder's failure to adhere to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, which resulted in the Authority taking over the project and imposing penalties.

The second category involves penalties imposed due to delays in completing projects or uploading necessary documentation. In one instance, a penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed for not uploading a completion certificate in time, highlighting the importance of maintaining thorough records in a timely manner.

The third theme centers around incomplete documentation and compliance, where the builder was penalized where the builder was penalized for contraventions that reflect a broader pattern of neglecting regulatory obligations.

Common reasons for litigation in these cases include contesting penalties, disputing delays attributed to other parties, and disagreements over compliance with regulations. A pattern emerges where the builder’s lack of adherence to rules and timelines serves as a frequent trigger for legal action.

The builder lost these cases primarily due to insufficient evidence, non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements, and a general misunderstanding of their obligations under RERA. This underlines the importance for builders to ensure thorough compliance with regulations and to maintain complete, timely documentation to avoid legal repercussions.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases can be grouped into several recurring themes that highlight the primary disputes arising in these legal matters.

1. Non-compliance with Agreements: Many complaints were based on claims that the builder did not fulfill their part of agreements. However, the builder consistently defended itself by demonstrating that there were no agreements directly with the claimants, or that agreements existed with different entities. For instance, in one case, the complainant had an agreement with another company, M/s Pranay Infra, rather than the respondent.
2. Disputes over Contractual Obligations: Several of the cases involved disputes regarding the expectations set out in real estate agreements, with claimants seeking either early possession of properties or full refunds. Suwalka argued that amicable settlements had been reached, or that the claims had no standing due to lack of presence in court from the complainants.
3. Claims for Possession or Refunds: Some complainants sought immediate possession or sought refunds due to purported delays or non-compliance. In these instances, Suwalka's defense often included assertions of previously reached settlements despite the claims for refunds or possession.
4. Lack of Evidence by Complainants: A common thread among the cases was the notable absence or non-attendance of the complainants in court, which was a critical factor leading to the dismissal of cases. The inability of the opposing parties to present substantial evidence or even appear for hearings often led to favorable outcomes for the builder.

These cases were brought forth for a variety of reasons including contesting penalties, claims of delays, and disputes over land agreements. The consistent pattern observed is that many of the complaints arose from misunderstandings or disputes regarding prior agreements, often coupled with failures from the complainants to fulfill procedural expectations such as court appearances.

The primary reasons for the builder's success in court included insufficient evidence provided by the opposing parties, non-compliance with legal procedures, and a failure to substantiate claims that could demonstrate any wrongdoing by the builder. These outcomes reflect not just luck on the part of Suwalka, but rather a strong foundation for defending against potentially false or exaggerated claims made by buyers or other entities.

This analysis sheds light on the overall reputation of Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Private Limited within the real estate market. It highlights that buyers sometimes make unfounded accusations that can result in legal disputes. Despite these challenges, the builder has shown a strong ability to defend itself against these claims, contributing positively to its reputation.

In conclusion, potential buyers should exercise caution and diligence when forming opinions about builders based on claims or disputes. While valid issues may exist in the real estate sector, the results of these cases suggest that builders like Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Private Limited are often capable of successfully defending themselves when unjustly accused, emphasizing the importance of informed decision-making in real estate investments.