The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company and Bombay Realty to refund ₹1.95 crore to two homebuyers from Jamshedpur who had booked a ₹9.94 crore apartment in Mumbai's Dadar East in 2014, PTI reported on 10 November 2026.
The two companies must pay jointly and severally, meaning the buyers can recover the full amount from either. The bench of presiding member Poonam Maharshi and member Nisha Amol Chavhan found them guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Bombay Dyeing refund order
Apart from the ₹1.95 crore, the developers must pay 9% annual interest from the date of each payment until the money is returned, according to PropNewsTime. They must also pay ₹1 lakh as compensation and ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.
The flat measured about 1,941 sq ft and came with two car parking spaces. PropNewsTime identified it as Flat No. 801 in the Two ICC tower at Island City Centre in Dadar East.
How the dispute unfolded
The buyers, Raj Kumar Agarwal and Rahul Agarwal, paid a ₹25 lakh booking amount in August 2014 and received an allotment letter in October 2014 under a 30:70 payment plan. Such plans typically split payments into 30% early and 70% at a later stage.
They alleged that construction ran more than a year late, and that the developers kept demanding payments under the original plan even after they sought a construction-linked schedule. In September 2016, they received a pre-termination notice warning of cancellation and forfeiture.
The buyers cancelled the booking in October 2016 and sought a refund. Criminal proceedings they started were later quashed by the Jharkhand High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal in 2022 while leaving civil remedies open. They filed the consumer complaint in August 2022.
Why the developers lost
The developers argued that the buyers had defaulted, that the contract allowed forfeiture, that an arbitration clause barred the consumer forum, and that the complaint was time-barred because the booking was cancelled in 2016.
The commission rejected all these objections. It held that keeping buyers' money without delivering possession was a "continuing wrong" and that retaining the money while failing to deliver the unit "amounts to unjust enrichment". It also cited a fresh demand letter issued by the developers in January 2022, and said the arbitration clause did not remove statutory consumer remedies.
What it means for you
For homebuyers, the order shows that a cancelled booking does not end a builder's obligation to return money, and that delay in filing need not be fatal if the developer keeps the money or continues to send demands.
Buyers in similar disputes can approach consumer commissions as well as RERA, and arbitration clauses in allotment letters do not automatically shut that door. Keep every receipt, demand letter and email, since such documents can decide limitation questions years later.
Sources
- ThePrint (PTI): Can't sit on homebuyers' money without delivering flats: Consumer panel orders Rs 1.95 cr refund — published 10 November 2026.
- PropNewsTime: Bombay Realty and Bombay Dyeing ordered to refund INR 1.95 crore to Dadar homebuyers with 9% interest — published 13 November 2026.
Frequently asked questions
How much must Bombay Dyeing refund to the Dadar homebuyers?
The commission ordered Bombay Dyeing and Bombay Realty, jointly and severally, to refund ₹1.95 crore with 9% annual interest from each payment date, plus ₹1.5 lakh as compensation and costs.
Why did the consumer commission reject the time-bar argument?
It held that keeping buyers' money without delivering the flat was a continuing wrong, and noted a fresh demand letter issued in January 2022.
Can an arbitration clause stop a consumer complaint against a builder?
In this case the commission said the arbitration clause did not take away the buyers' statutory remedies under consumer law.