Analysis of the cases filed against Shri Vidisa Developers that it lost reveals several key points across the spectrum of disputes encountered by the builder. The cases highlight two primary themes: regulatory compliance issues and delays in reporting and transparency.

The first theme, regulatory compliance issues, encompasses the builder's failure to adhere to the provisions outlined in the RERA Act and Rules. In one notable case, the builder was fined for not submitting quarterly reports on time, which is a critical requirement for maintaining transparency and compliance within the real estate framework. This case illustrates a pattern where builders may face legal consequences due to insufficient adherence to regulatory standards.

The second theme, delays in reporting and transparency, further elucidates the importance of timely communication in the real estate sector. Builders are expected to keep their clients and the appropriate authorities informed about project progress, and any delays in reporting can lead to legal disputes. In the case of Shri Vidisa Developers, the delay in submitting reports resulted in a direct financial penalty, indicating a common trigger for litigation in this sector.

The reasons why people commonly bring cases against builders like Shri Vidisa Developers include contesting penalties for non-compliance, disputing project delays, and disagreements over regulatory requirements. The patterns emerging from these summaries suggest that builders are often caught off guard by the strict enforcement of rules and regulations, leading to a series of legal challenges.

The common reasons for the builder's losses in these cases center around non-compliance with legal requirements, failure to fulfill reporting obligations, and a general lack of transparency. The builder's defense in one case—that it was their first mistake and a request for leniency—highlights an additional pattern where builders may not take regulatory compliance seriously until they face legal repercussions. Overall, these cases serve as a reminder for builders to prioritize adherence to regulations and for clients to be vigilant and informed about their rights and expectations.

An analysis of the cases filed by the builder Vidisa Developers, which it lost, reveals insightful details about the nature of disputes and common themes in their litigation history.

The cases can primarily be grouped into three common themes:

1. Regulatory Non-compliance: This theme encompasses issues related to failing to adhere to the regulations set by authorities. The builder faced penalties primarily for not submitting required documentation, indicating a lack of compliance with regulatory timelines and requirements.
2. Penalties for Project Delays: Vidisa Developers frequently found itself contesting financial penalties levied due to delays in project completions. A notable observation is how these disputes often linked back to the builders’ internal management of schedules and deadlines, suggesting that external factors, like supply chain disruptions or labor shortages, were not always communicated effectively.
3. Disputes over Reporting Requirements: Another recurring theme involved disagreements over the timely submission of reports and documents. The builder claimed that miscommunications led to misunderstandings regarding their obligations, but the authorities pointed out consistent failures in compliance despite prior reminders.

Commonly, the builder came to court to contest penalties associated with project delays and argue against actions from external authorities that they believed were unwarranted. Much of this stems from a tendency to blame external parties for issues that arguably fell within their management purview, such as delayed reporting and project management failures.

Examining the reasons for losses reveals several patterns. Firstly, a consistent lack of sufficient evidence to support their claims hindered their positions. Secondly, non-compliance with legal or regulatory obligations, particularly regarding timely reporting and documentation, continued to be a critical factor in their losses. This suggests that there may have been underlying misalignments in the builders' operational processes versus regulatory expectations.

The summaries indicate that misunderstandings related to project classifications and land use regulations have left the builder in a precarious position, often at odds with regulatory authorities. In conclusion, Vidisa Developers' litigation history signifies a pressing need for improved compliance strategies, rigorous internal processes regarding documentation, and a more proactive approach to managing project timelines to avoid further legal challenges in the future.