
CIN | Not Available |
---|---|
Year Established | Not Available |
Address | Not Available |
Company Status | Not Available |
Overall Case Outcomes
Introduction
In the ever-evolving real estate market, it is crucial for potential buyers to do their due diligence before investing in a property. One of the builders in Madhya Pradesh that has garnered attention is SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE. Armed with a record of legal challenges, both won and lost, this blog post delves into the builder’s performance in legal disputes, drawing valuable insights for prospective buyers.
Overview of Legal Performance
SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE has faced a total of seven complaints, resulting in a relatively impressive track record with five cases won and two lost. This performance provides a glimpse into how the builder navigates legal issues related to property transactions.
Cases Lost
- Loss Due to Transaction Legality: In one of the cases, SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE lost because the applicant claimed inadequate facilities in the flat booked, which the authority later found was booked by the applicant's wife, leading to a dismissal of the …
Cases Lost by Builder (When Defending)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
Analysis of the cases filed against the builder SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE, which it lost, revealed significant insights into the builder's legal disputes. The cases can be grouped into several common themes: Incomplete Construction and Amenities Claims, Possession Date Disputes, and Failure to Provide Essential Services.
Many of the claims made by the applicants revolved around the builder's failure to complete construction on their flats, particularly concerning the provision of basic amenities such as lifts, electricity connections, and water supply. This highlights an ongoing issue in real estate where builders may prioritize profit over the comfort and safety of homeowners.
There were also disputes regarding the possession date of the flats. Builders often claim that construction was completed and possession was granted years ago, which can lead to accusations of lack of transparency and misinformation. The underlying reason for these disputes appears to stem from a lack of clear communication and proper …
Cases Lost by Builder (When Filing)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
The analysis of the cases filed by the builder, SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE, which it lost, reveals a pattern of disputes primarily revolving around facility and infrastructure commitments, legal transaction validity, and responsibility assignments in contracts.
One common theme identified is the Facility and Infrastructure Disputes. In many instances, buyers claimed that the builder failed to deliver the promised facilities and infrastructure in the booked flats. This suggests a potential gap in communication and expectations between the builder and the buyers regarding what was included in the purchase agreements.
Another significant theme is Legal Transaction Issues. In the case summarized, the builder contested the validity of the booking made by the applicant’s wife. This brings forth challenges related to who holds legal responsibility within transactions and highlights disputes that arise when there’s ambiguity regarding the parties in the contractual agreement.
The builder often brought cases to …
Individual case details available for subscribers.
Cases Won by Builder (When Filing)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
An analysis of the cases filed by the builder, SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE, which it won, revealed the following information. The cases primarily centered around three key themes:
- Delayed Possession Claims: Many disputes involved the builder's failure to provide timely possession of flats to the applicants. In these cases, applicants sought compensation for the delays experienced.
- Disputes over Sales Agreements: Some cases revolved around disagreements regarding the sale of flats. For instance, the builder contested claims asserting that the flat was not sold to the applicant, which subsequently affected the facilitation of promised infrastructure and services.
- Non-compliance with Payment Requirements: These cases also included issues regarding claims that the builder had not received full payment from the applicants, which affected possession claims.
The primary reasons for SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE bringing these cases to court include contesting penalties and addressing disputes attributed to alleged …
Individual case details available for subscribers.
Cases Won by Builder (When Defending)
Yearly Trend for these Cases
Common Topics
An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, SWASTIK INFRASTRUCTURE, which the builder won, revealed the following information. A key theme in these disputes pertains to claims of non-compliance with contractual obligations, where buyers allege that certain promised amenities, such as permanent electricity connections, lifts, and rainwater harvesting systems, were not provided. However, the builder successfully defended against these claims by establishing that the opposing parties had not entered into a formal transaction with them.
This brings us to our second theme: legal non-maintainability of cases, indicating that many cases may not meet legal standards for proceeding in court. As seen in the summarized case, the authority concurred with the builder’s assertion that the case was not maintainable since the applicant had no valid transaction established with the respondent.
From the case summaries, it's evident that the primary reasons for these disputes include disappointing expectations regarding promised services …
Individual case details available for subscribers.
Builder Reviews
No reviews for this builder yet. Be the first one to share your thoughts!