Analysis of the cases filed against Umang Real Tech Private Limited, where the builder lost, revealed significant insights into the common themes and disputes faced by the builder. The cases can be broadly categorized into several types, including delayed possession claims, refund and compensation disputes, moratorium and insolvency claims, non-compliance with contractual obligations, and unforeseen circumstances leading to extension requests.

Many of the cases revolved around delayed possession claims, where buyers sought refunds or compensation due to the builder's failure to deliver units within the stipulated timelines. These claims often cited reasons beyond the builder's control, such as global recessions, water shortages, and labor issues. However, the underlying pattern suggests that buyers were primarily concerned with the builder's inability to meet deadlines, leading to a lack of trust and resultant litigation.

Refund and compensation disputes were another frequent theme. Buyers sought refunds based on the builder’s failure to fulfill their obligations, with some claiming they had not started construction despite receiving payments. The builder's defenses often revolved around the imposition of moratoriums by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which they argued hindered their ability to proceed with projects. Nevertheless, the authority consistently favored buyers, indicating a systemic issue with the builder's operational practices.

The builder's non-compliance with contractual obligations was a recurring reason for the losses in these cases. Buyers highlighted instances where the builder failed to adhere to agreed-upon timelines or to provide promised amenities, leading to claims of breach of contract. The builder's inability to meet these obligations resulted in legal consequences, as buyers were entitled to refunds and interest on their investments.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the builder frequently attributed delays to unforeseen circumstances and sought extensions. While it’s essential to acknowledge that certain situations may warrant delays, the pattern observed in these cases indicates a repeated reliance on this defense without substantial evidence to support it. This led authorities to rule against the builder, as they failed to convincingly demonstrate that delays were beyond their control.

In conclusion, the analysis shows that Umang Real Tech Private Limited faced legal challenges primarily due to significant delays in delivering property units, non-compliance with contractual obligations, and an inability to convincingly defend against claims of inadequate project management. Buyers were driven to litigation by a desire to protect their investments and obtain timely refunds or compensation. As such, potential buyers should exercise caution and thoroughly evaluate the builder's reputation, track record, and operational practices before making any commitments.

The analysis of the cases filed by the builder Umang Real Tech Private Limited, which it lost, revealed several insights into the nature of disputes and the reasons for these unfavorable outcomes. These cases can be grouped into a few key themes. First, there are multiple instances of 'Default Summary Dismissals' where appeals were dismissed in default. This indicates potential issues with the builder's legal representation or failure to meet procedural requirements. The lack of provided claims in these instances suggests a reluctance to actively pursue the appeals, which reflects positively on the opposing party's position or possibly a weakness in the builder's case preparation.

Another common theme is 'Regulatory Compliance Issues.' In one noted case, the builder sought leave to attach a flat as a remedy for a deposit requirement under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The dismissal of the application and the need for further deposits suggest that the builder may have struggled to comply with regulatory norms, regulating both their operational practices and financial responsibilities.

Lastly, the theme 'Financial Disputes Over Project Deposits' indicates that the builder was likely facing challenges associated with financial obligations in their dealings with clients or creditors. Disputes over mandated deposits hint towards potential cash flow issues or mismanagement of project financing.

The common reasons why the builder brought cases to court include contesting penalties they believed were incorrectly imposed, disputing project delays often attributed to external factors, or disagreements regarding the regulatory compliance related to land classification and financial obligations. These patterns indicate a builder attempting to mitigate risks and push back against perceived injustices or undue financial strain rather than consistently upholding contractual agreements with clients.

On the contrary, the reasons the builder lost these cases seem to stem from a lack of solid evidence, inability to adhere to legal or regulatory requirements, and possibly a failure to capitalize on the interim directions given by the courts. The loss of the appeal due to 'default' suggests a neglect of procedural protocols which is critical in any litigation. Overall, these patterns highlight the importance of legal preparedness, adherence to regulations, and a coherent approach to managing project obligations in the real estate industry.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, Umang Real Tech Private Limited, which the builder won, revealed the following information. The cases generally fall into several recurring themes, each highlighting different kinds of disputes between the buyers and the builder.

1. Delayed Possession Claims – Many complaints were based on allegations that the builder failed to deliver possession of apartments on time. In some cases, however, the builder successfully presented evidence of having obtained necessary completion certificates, proving that their projects were ready but the complainants were misinformed or misled.
2. Non-compliance with Registration Requirements – Several cases revolved around the builder's alleged failure to register projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. However, the builder effectively demonstrated its compliance through timely registrations, leading to dismissals of the complaints.
3. Claims of Irregularities in Real Estate Projects – Numerous cases claimed irregularities in the builder's dealings; yet most were dismissed due to the complainants' failure to appear for hearings or provide sufficient evidence.
4. Withdrawal and Dismissal for Non-appearance – A significant number of cases were dismissed because the complainants failed to appear in court. This raises concerns regarding the validity of such claims or the seriousness of the complainants in pursuing their complaints.
5. Settlement and Amicable Resolutions – There were instances where disputes were resolved amicably or withdrew by the complainants after reaching agreements, indicating some disputes may not be as contentious as initially presented.

The reasons why these cases were brought to court often included claims related to project delays, requests for refunds, and allegations about compliance with relevant regulations. The analysis reveals that many buyers may have filed complaints due to misunderstandings or miscommunications regarding project deliverables or entitlement based on agreements.

The common reasons the builder won these cases showcased that many complaints either lacked proper evidence or were not adequately pursued in court. The builder managed to defend itself against various claims, which outlines an important aspect of its operational integrity. Some buyers appeared to overstate their grievances, leading to unsuccessful claims against Umang Real Tech Private Limited.

From this analysis, it is apparent that the builder maintains a strong track record in defending itself against allegations that appear unfounded or exaggerated. This speaks to their effective business practices and adherence to regulations within the real estate market.

For potential buyers, it's crucial to approach the real estate market with a discerning eye. While there are certainly legitimate grievances and challenges, as highlighted by some legitimate claims, the outcomes of these cases emphasize the importance of thorough investigations before forming judgments about a builder's reputation. Builders like Umang Real Tech Private Limited illustrate that many disputes stem from misunderstandings or overreactions, and potential buyers should gather reliable information to inform their decisions when engaging with any real estate entity.