The analysis of the cases filed by the builder WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE, which it lost, reveals key insights into its primary disputes and the themes surrounding them. The cases can be grouped into a few common categories:

1. Delayed Possession Claims: One of the recurring themes in the builder's disputes relates to issues surrounding the timely handover of physical possession of properties. In the examined case, for instance, the builder claimed that they were not provided possession of a house, which led to a compensation claim. Such disputes typically arise when buyers expect a property to be ready for occupation as per agreed timelines.
2. Payment Disputes: Another significant area of contention involves financial dealings between the builder and its clients. In the case summary, the respondent (the other party) contested the complaint on grounds that the applicant (the builder) failed to pay the full amount for the property. Such disputes often stem from misunderstandings or disagreements regarding the total cost of the property, payment schedules, or changes in pricing.
3. Res judicata: A common legal principle surfaced in WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE's disputes is res judicata, which refers to the issue of whether a case has already been adjudicated. In the case under summary, the dispute was dismissed based on this principle, indicating that the same matter had previously been resolved, highlighting the importance of timely and sound legal strategy.
4. Non-compliance with Contractual Obligations: Many of WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE's disputes appear to revolve around allegations of not fulfilling contractual requirements, which can include promises related to property delivery, specifications, and quality.

Throughout these proceedings, several patterns emerge illustrating why the builder brought these cases to court. Often, WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE sought to challenge penalties imposed or sought compensation claims based on their perception of wrongful delays or actions attributed to other parties involved in the property transactions.

However, the common reasons for their losses include factors such as insufficient evidence to back their claims, non-compliance with legal obligations, and misunderstandings regarding statutory obligations or entitlements. It appears that the builder struggled with adequately demonstrating their arguments in court and complying with necessary legal standards, underscoring the vital importance of thorough documentation and legal guidance in real estate transactions.

An analysis of the cases filed against the builder, WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE, which the builder won, revealed the following information.

The disputes showcased a recurring theme primarily revolving around disagreements between formed committees of allottees, particularly in the case of the Eden Gardens Maintenance Co-operative Society versus the earlier INS Committee. These disputes demonstrate a common issue where buyers or their representatives are sometimes unable to find common ground, leading to conflicts that necessitate legal intervention.

The claims in these cases often stemmed from attempts to address internal disputes within the project's community, rather than direct claims against the builder regarding issues like delayed possession or non-compliance with regulations. In this instance, the conflicts seemed to arise not from the builder's actions or inactions but from the complexities of managing a cooperative society's internal governance.

The builder successfully defended itself against these claims due to a few crucial factors: first, it was demonstrated that WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE was not a party to the disputes between the committees. Securing a victory in such circumstances often hinges on demonstrating a lack of involvement in the disagreements at hand, which can be critical in court rulings. Secondly, some cases may not fall within jurisdictional parameters relevant to real estate matters, leading to rejections based on legal grounds rather than the merit of the claims made. This indicates that applicants may have misunderstood the legal landscape or overstepped their claims.

What this analysis reveals about WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE is that the builder has not only a strong legal standing but also a track record of effectively defending itself against what could be seen as unfounded allegations. Buyers sometimes pursue legal actions based on misinterpretations or exaggerations of their grievances, resulting in drawn-out legal disputes, which can tarnish a builder's reputation despite the lack of merit behind the claims.

For potential buyers, the insights drawn from these cases underscore the necessity of conducting thorough due diligence before forming opinions about builders. While legitimate disputes exist across the real estate market, the ability of WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE to fend off unwarranted claims suggests a more nuanced reality about their operational integrity. Buyers are advised to approach all claims, both against and in favor of builders, with a critical mindset and to rely on substantiated information while making their investment decisions.