THREE C SHELTER PRIVATE LIMITED

Introduction

Three C Shelter Private Limited has established a presence in the Indian real estate market, particularly in Haryana. However, like many builders, they have faced their share of complaints and legal challenges. In this blog post, we will delve into the performance of Three C Shelter by analyzing the cases they have been involved in and offering insights for potential buyers.

Overview of Legal Cases

Three C Shelter Private Limited has encountered a total of two significant legal complaints. Among these, the builder has experienced one loss and one win, highlighting a mixed track record.

Cases Lost

1. The first case filed against the builder stemmed from the allegation that the project was not registered with the appropriate regulatory authority. While the builder contended that they had adhered to the provisions set forth by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the complaint was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. This indicates a potential lack of follow-through by the complainant, rather than a definitive win for the builder.
2. The second case that the builder lost revolved around an appellant who claimed that the authority initiated suo-moto proceedings based on an earlier complaint. The dismissal of this appeal occurred because it didn't align with Section 44(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This suggests that while the legal conclusion was unfortunate for the builder, it may have been due to procedural grounds rather than outright misconduct.

Performance Summary

From the data available, we can discern a couple of patterns:

• Common Factors in Lost Cases: Both cases lost by Three C Shelter highlight challenges in regulatory processes and compliance. The factors contributing to these losses suggest procedural misalignment rather than issues stemming directly from the quality of construction or service delivery.
• Winning Case: Notably, the builder achieved a win in a case where the procedures followed were determined to be out of the jurisdiction. This indicates that while the builder may not have outrightly prevailed in client satisfaction, they were capable of successfully navigating complex regulatory disputes when the rules were not followed correctly by others.

Conclusion

Three C Shelter Private Limited's mixed record of complaints reveals a builder that is capable of legally defending its practices, although it has faced genuine claims against them. With one case won and one lost, potential buyers may want to consider their track record in understanding the builder’s credibility.

Tips for Potential Buyers

When considering a purchase from Three C Shelter or any builder:

1. Verify Registration: Always check whether the project is registered with the relevant authorities to avoid future complications.
2. Due Diligence: Conduct thorough research across multiple platforms to gather insights about the builder's reputation.
3. Consult Reviews: Seek out reviews or experiences from previous buyers to gauge satisfaction levels and common issues faced.
4. Legal Clarity: Ensure that you understand your legal rights and recourse should issues arise during or after the purchase.
5. Quality Assessment: Look into the builder's previous projects for quality of construction and adherence to timelines.

By following these guidelines, home buyers can make informed decisions when considering projects by Three C Shelter Private Limited or any other builder in the market.

Analysis of the cases filed by the builder Three C Shelter Private Limited, which it lost, reveals important insights into the recurring themes and patterns surrounding their legal disputes.

First, it is evident that many of the cases fall under themes such as Regulatory Non-Compliance and Disputes Over Enforcement of Orders. For instance, the builder contested the authority's decision to start suo-moto proceedings, despite the existence of separate execution proceedings already in motion. This indicates a tendency to challenge actions taken by regulatory bodies, reflecting a possible struggle to adhere to legal obligations or understand the implications of their actions within the regulatory framework.

The builder commonly brought cases to court to contest penalties or enforce rulings related to project timelines. A significant trigger appears to be disagreements related to authority actions, where the builder claimed that such actions were improperly initiated or overlapped with ongoing processes. This reveals a defensive approach, where the builder sought to mitigate legal repercussions stemming from perceived regulatory overreach or procedural mismanagement.

However, upon reviewing the reasons for the builder's losses, several factors emerge. Primary among them is a clear lack of sufficient evidence in their claims, as indicated by the dismissal of appeals that didn't align with legal provisions. Moreover, there seems to be a recurring issue of non-compliance with legal or regulatory requirements, reflecting possible lapses in the builder's understanding or execution of necessary guidelines. In addition, the inability to navigate complex land and project classification rules has likely hindered the builder's position in court. Ultimately, the patterns suggest a significant need for the builder to enhance compliance and legal readiness to avoid similar outcomes in the future.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Three C Shelter Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases can be grouped into several common themes that represent the primary disputes encountered by the builder.

1. Regulatory Non-compliance Claims: These included allegations that the builder’s projects were not registered with the relevant authorities. Opposing parties often argued from the standpoint of regulatory violations. Such cases demonstrate a broader concern among buyers regarding compliance with real estate regulations.
2. Project Registration Disputes: Similar to non-compliance claims, these disputes focused specifically on whether the builder adhered to the registration requirements outlined in the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. Complaints often emerged from skepticism about the builder's adherence to legal standards, reflecting buyers’ urgent desires for transparency.
3. Disputes Related to Customer Grievances: These cases typically arose from frustrations expressed by customers regarding perceived shortcomings in service or project delivery. Opponents voiced concerns that lead to allegations which, while sometimes valid, were not sufficiently substantiated in court.

The reasons behind these cases often stemmed from contesting penalties, claims of delays in project possession, or misunderstandings concerning land classifications and regulations. From the case summaries, a pattern emerges suggesting that buyers or regulatory bodies may occasionally bring forth complaints influenced by impatience or misinterpretation of the builder's obligations and timelines.

The builder’s victories in these cases frequently stemmed from the opposing parties’ inability to provide adequate evidence supporting their claims or a lack of clear violation of regulatory mandates. In some instances, misunderstandings about project registration rules led to unwarranted accusations. These factors underscore the builder’s effective defense against claims that were sometimes exaggerated or unfounded.

This analysis reflects positively on Three C Shelter Private Limited, suggesting that despite facing accusations, the builder maintains a strong stance in the legal domain of real estate. Such cases indicate not only resilience in handling disputes but also highlight the potential for buyers to misrepresent their issues in the legal framework of real estate.

In conclusion, potential buyers should approach real estate claims with a critical mindset and conduct thorough research before making judgments about a builder's reputation. While genuine grievances exist in the market, the outcomes of these cases illustrate that builders like Three C Shelter Private Limited can robustly defend against unjust claims. Therefore, it is essential for buyers to distinguish between valid complaints and those stemming from misconceptions or unfounded allegations.

This dictionary provides a clear structure that addresses the key themes of the cases and delivers a comprehensive summary that can serve both as an informative piece for prospective buyers and as a reflection of the builder’s practices in the real estate market.