CIN | U99999MH1959PLC011472 |
---|---|
Year Established | 7-Oct-59 |
Address | Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Bhandup (West) Mumbai MH 400078 IN |
Company Status | Public |
When it comes to real estate development and construction, the reputation of the builder often plays a crucial role in a buyer's decision-making process. One such builder, Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Limited, has gained attention due to its legal history. In this post, we will analyze the builder's track record with complaints and legal cases to better understand their standing in the industry.
Location: Maharashtra
Number of Complaints: 6
Cases Won: 0
Cases Lost: 6
Having faced a total of six legal complaints, Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Limited has an unfortunate record—losing every case brought against them. This raises some important questions about their operational transparency and customer satisfaction.
Out of the six legal cases, all resulted in losses for the builder. The following patterns emerge from the details of these cases:
While the builder has a record of losing all its cases, it is essential to note that they have engaged in cases that were dismissed or withdrawn on procedural grounds:
In conclusion, Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Limited's legal history is marked by a complete lack of favorable outcomes in their six cases. This record of unsuccessful litigation should raise red flags for potential buyers, as it could pose significant risks regarding property delivery, quality, and overall reliability.
Choosing a builder is a significant decision that can impact your investment and quality of life. Equip yourself with the right knowledge to make informed choices.
No builder reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Here you’ll find cases where others sued the builder, and the builder lost. We’ve included a simple summary and key takeaways from each case.
Analysis of the cases filed against Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Limited, where the builder lost, reveals several key themes across the various disputes. The cases highlight issues that can be broadly categorized into withdrawal and deletion claims, legal compliance and regulatory matters, and contractual disputes pertaining to project delays.
The majority of the cases involved the builder's attempt to either withdraw their appeal or delete names from the ongoing litigation. This points to a pattern where the builder may have faced challenges that made it preferable to relinquish their claims rather than pursue them through the courts. The common triggers for these withdrawals seem to stem from external legal pressures, as seen in the case where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order necessitated the withdrawal of the appeal.
Additionally, there are hints of legal compliance and regulatory issues, although the specifics of these cases remain vague due to the lack of provided details. It is important to note that builders often face scrutiny regarding their adherence to local regulations and municipal orders. Non-compliance can result in legal action, including penalties and disputes over land classification or conversion.
The builder's losses in these cases likely stem from several factors. Insufficient evidence to support their claims, failure to comply with legal or regulatory requirements, and misunderstandings of project classification rules could have contributed to the outcomes. Moreover, the builder's reliance on withdrawals suggests a potential lack of solid grounding in their legal claims or a reactive approach to litigation, rather than a proactive one based on thorough legal advice and strategic planning.
Overall, this analysis underscores the importance for potential buyers to consider a builder’s legal history and compliance record when making informed decisions in the real estate market. Builders with a track record of losing cases may indicate underlying issues that could affect project timelines and handover dates. It is crucial for buyers to weigh these factors against their investment goals and to seek legal counsel when engaging with builders of questionable repute.
This table provides an analysis of individual cases that contributed to the summary above. Click on any row to expand and view complete details, and use the "Show More" button to load additional rows as needed.
Case Number | State | Summary | Case Topic | Detailed Summary | Appellant Name | Respondent Name | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AT006000000063794 | Maharashtra | Appeal withdrawn unconditionally by appellants. A… | ["Withdrawal of app… | {"appellant_claim": "Not provided", "respondent_c… | Anr. | Wheelabrator Alloy … | https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1KLIwtdl6-5RmXGSMkotC2yd2T3ygFxAV |
AT006000000134196 | Maharashtra | The appeal was withdrawn by the appellant in view… | ["Withdrawal of app… | {"appellant_claim": "The appellant sought to with… | Mrs. Mangala Sinha | Wheelabrator Alloy … | https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1KSFvHOTqK3S7_0lusW9MY_TO1TE_sett |
AT006000000010445 | Maharashtra | Appellant Neha Kalghutkar's appeal against Wheela… | ["Appeal amendment"] | {"appellant_claim": "The appellant seeks to delet… | Neha Kalghutkar | Wheelabrator Alloy … | https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1lWBZCLPcXuAbZBT5DnTsBT9ug8bSepMF |