WORTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
- No of Complaints: 57
- States (Active in): Madhya Pradesh
| CIN | U45400MP1998PTC012806 |
|---|---|
| Year Established | 4-May-98 |
| Address | 39/9A,SAKET NAGAR, BHOPAL MP 462024 IN |
| Company Status | Private |
Introduction to Worth Infrastructure Private Limited
When considering a new home or commercial investment, the reputation and track record of the builder are paramount. Worth Infrastructure Private Limited operates primarily in Madhya Pradesh but has been mired in controversy with a significant number of legal disputes. In this blog post, we will explore the builder's history, the legal landscape surrounding their projects, and essential advice for potential buyers.
Overview of Legal Complaints
Worth Infrastructure Private Limited has faced a staggering 57 complaints, with an unfortunate record of losing all these cases. This raises questions about the accountability and performance of the builder, especially in regards to the ‘Eden Gardens’ project, which is at the core of the disputes.
Breakdown of Legal Cases
The cases against Worth Infrastructure Private Limited typically revolve around claims of incomplete projects. Most complaints outline that the 'Eden Gardens' project lacks critical facilities such as:
- Sewage Treatment Plants (STP)
- Community Halls
- Proper Fencing
- Boundary Walls
- Secure Maintenance of Infrastructure
1. Incompletion of Projects: Every case involved allegations that the projects were unfinished or did not meet promised specifications.
2. Lack of Essential Facilities: Frequent mentions of inadequate or absent facilities point to a worrying trend in project management and oversight.
3. Authority Intervention: In almost every case, authorities had to direct the builder to complete outstanding work and rectify issues within set timelines, indicating persistent operational failures.
Patterns in Cases Responded:
Interestingly, there was not a single case won by the builder, which reflects poorly on their capacity to defend their claims regarding completed work or to substantiate their assertions that they met all original agreements with buyers. They repeatedly claimed to have completed work and provided all facilities, yet never succeeded in convincing the authorities or the applicants otherwise.
Conclusion and Assessment
Given the data, Worth Infrastructure Private Limited presents significant red flags for potential buyers. The persistent complaints and the inability to win a single case suggest a profound systemic issue within the company's operations and a lack of reliability in their project completions.
Tips for Potential Buyers
1. Do Your Research: Always investigate a builder's history, including complaints and satisfaction rates from previous clients.2. Demand Transparency: Ask for clear, documented timelines and commitments during your discussions with the builder.
3. Engage in Community Feedback: Speak to existing residents or stakeholders who have had dealings with the builder to gauge their experiences.
4. Review Legal Commitments: Ensure that all promises are backed by legally binding documents; avoid verbal agreements.
5. Consult Legal Experts: If opting to purchase from this builder, ensure you have legal advice to navigate your rights and the obligations of the builder.
General Tips When Selecting Any Builder
- Check Reviews and Ratings: Look for reviews on independent platforms to gauge overall sentiment.
- Visit Past Projects: Observing completed projects gives insight into the quality of work.
- Ensure Compliance with Standards: Verify that the builder adheres to local building codes and regulations.
- Budget for Contingencies: Factor in potential delays and unexpected costs.
In summary, while Worth Infrastructure Private Limited may advertise appealing projects, potential buyers should proceed with extreme caution, given the serious issues illustrated by the complaints and legal outcomes.
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 Worth Infrastructure Private Limited, where the builder lost, reveals significant insights into the common disputes associated with their projects. The cases primarily revolve around four key themes: incomplete project claims, delayed possession claims, disputes over proper facilities, and non-compliance with authority directives.
The majority of the cases involve claims that the project 'Eden Gardens' was incomplete, lacking essential facilities such as a sewage treatment plant, community hall, fencing, and proper maintenance of parks. The builder consistently claimed that all work had been completed and proper facilities were provided, yet the authority directed them to finish the remaining work and provide the necessary amenities within a specified timeframe in each case. This pattern suggests a systemic issue where the builder may have been prematurely claiming completion and adequacy of their projects.
Delayed possession claims also emerged, where buyers sought compensation for the builder's failure to deliver properties on time. In one notable case, the builder attributed the delay to the buyer's failure to make timely payments, which indicates a communication breakdown or contractual misunderstanding between parties.
The common reasons people brought cases to court primarily revolved around the builder's failure to deliver promised facilities and timely project completion. Buyers were often left in incomplete communities without requisite amenities, leading to dissatisfaction and legal recourse. The builder's repeated losses in these cases highlight a pattern of non-compliance with contractual obligations and regulatory requirements, which further aggravates buyer grievances.
The builder lost these cases predominantly due to a lack of evidence supporting their claims of completed projects and provided facilities. The authorities consistently sided with the buyers, stressing the importance of fulfilling contractual commitments and ensuring proper community development. The builder’s failure to adhere to the directives set forth by the governing bodies resulted in multiple legal losses, emphasizing the need for transparency and compliance in real estate development.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-CHAS-7-0423 | Madhya Pradesh | The applicant, Shri Inderpal Singh, filed a compl… | ["Delay in possessi… | {"appellant_claim": "The applicant claimed that t… | Shri Inderpal Singh | Worth Infrastructur… | https://www.rera.mp.gov.in/upload/complaint_files/516656699115.pdf |