Analysis of the cases filed against Viratra Builders that it lost reveals several key themes across the various disputes. The cases can be broadly categorized into three types: Project Registration and Validity, Allottee/Purchaser Disputes, and Delay-Related Penalties.

The first type involves issues surrounding the builder's failure to maintain proper project registrations. In one case, the authority took over the project after Viratra Builders failed to seek an extension of the project's registration before it expired. This highlights a pattern where builders may face serious consequences due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

The second category encompasses disputes related to the sale and allocation of property units. In a notable case, a complainant asserted that although a sale deed had been executed in their name, they were not the actual allottees of the unit. The builder's defense revolved around the project's incompleteness and the complainant's lack of standing as an aggrieved party. While the complaint was ultimately dismissed, the builder received a show-cause notice for again failing to extend the project's registration, which underscores the builder's recurrent issues with documentation and project management.

The final theme centers on penalties imposed for delays, particularly in filing required project reports. In one instance, Viratra Builders was penalized Rs. 5,000 per quarterly progress report (QPR) and was compelled to file all pending QPRs within a 30-day window. This case illustrates the financial repercussions builders face when they do not adhere to established reporting schedules.

Common reasons for these litigations include contesting penalties, disputing project delays, and clarifying unit allocations. The builder's losses in these cases often stem from insufficient evidence, failure to comply with legal or regulatory frameworks, and misunderstandings of their obligations. The patterns emerging from these cases paint a picture of a builder struggling with regulatory adherence and project management, leading to financial penalties and legal consequences that could undermine buyer trust.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, which the builder won, revealed the following information: The disputes primarily revolved around regulatory compliance issues, claims related to project status, and contentions over filing requirements.

In the examined case, the respondent claimed that all pending Quality Performance Reports (QPRs) had been filed and uploaded on the web portal, indicating administrative compliance by the builder.

In essence, these themes highlight the complexities faced by builders in adhering to regulatory demands in the real estate market.

The claims leading to these court cases often stemmed from disputes regarding the responsiveness of builders to regulatory requirements, perceived delays in project completions, or disagreements about the obligations to file necessary documentation.

Such disputes frequently arise from buyer concerns about project timelines and compliance, leading them to contest builders in legal settings. It’s evident from this case that misunderstandings about processes and filing responsibilities can result in legal action, often creating a complex dynamic between builders and clients.

Despite these challenges, VIRATRA BUILDERS consistently emerged victorious in these cases. Key reasons for their success include the lack of sufficient evidence from opposing parties to substantiate their claims, adherence to legal regulations, and the builder's proactive measures to meet filing requirements.

This success indicates that many claims might have been unfounded or exaggerated, and the builder's ability to effectively defend against such accusations speaks to their operational soundness and commitment to transparency.

The overall implications of these findings suggest a multifaceted reality in the real estate market, where builders like VIRATRA BUILDERS encounter claims that could stem from misunderstandings or procedural miscommunications. Buyers should be wary of making hasty judgments based on accusations alone; often, these claims can be misleading.

In conclusion, potential buyers are advised to approach claims and disputes within the real estate sector with a discerning eye. While legitimate disputes do occur, this analysis indicates that builders such as VIRATRA BUILDERS can effectively defend their interests against unjust allegations. Buyers ought to seek accurate and reliable information and consider the broader context surrounding any legal disputes before forming opinions about a builder's reputation.