Consumer commission orders Bombay Realty to refund ₹1.95 crore to Dadar East buyers

On 10 November 2026, the Maharashtra Consumer Commission in Mumbai directed Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited and Bombay Realty to refund ₹1.95 crore to two homebuyers from Jamshedpur. The developers must pay the principal sum jointly and severally, which means either company can be held liable for the full amount. The bench also directed payment of ₹1.5 lakh towards compensation and litigation costs. The dispute concerns a flat in Dadar East, Mumbai.

What the buyers alleged and what the commission found

According to the buyers' complaint, they booked a 1,941 sq ft apartment with two car parking spaces in Dadar East for a total price of ₹9.94 crore. Between August and October 2014 they received allotment letters under a 30:70 payment plan and paid ₹1.95 crore, including an initial booking amount of ₹25 lakh. The buyers alleged that construction was delayed by more than a year. These are the buyers' allegations; the commission's order is the decision on them.

The commission said a developer cannot retain buyers' funds while failing to deliver the flat within a reasonable time. It described the retention of money without possession as a continuing wrong and as unjust enrichment, citing rulings of the Supreme Court. On that basis it held the conduct to be a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The buyers had also started criminal proceedings. Those were dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court and the Supreme Court, which leaves civil remedies for recovery open.

The limitation argument

The developers argued that the complaint was time-barred because the dispute arose in 2016. The complaint says the developer sent a pre-termination letter in September 2016 threatening cancellation and forfeiture, and the buyers cancelled the booking in October 2016 and sought a refund. The commission rejected the time-bar plea. It treated a fresh demand letter issued by the developer in January 2022 as an acknowledgement of a continuing transaction, which kept the claim within limitation.

Limitation is the time within which a legal claim must be filed. Under the commission's reasoning, a developer's later demand can extend that period, so a buyer's claim is not necessarily barred because the original dispute began years earlier.

What it means for buyers and developers

• Buyers who have paid money for a flat that has not been handed over can use consumer forums to seek a refund, the commission's reasoning suggests.
• A developer's later demand letters can affect whether an older claim is treated as time-barred.
• Buyers in delayed projects should keep allotment letters, payment receipts, cancellation notices and every demand letter, with their dates.
• Developers holding buyers' money without possession face refund orders that can be made joint and several across group companies.

The order does not state a compliance deadline for the refund. Interest on the principal is not stated in the directions. Whether either developer will appeal, and the time available to do so, is not yet known. No response from Bombay Dyeing or Bombay Realty to the order has been placed on record so far.

Bombay Realty is the real estate arm of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited and the Wadia Group. Its flagship developments are Island City Centre at Dadar and Wadia International Centre at Worli. The Dadar East unit in this case is not linked in the proceedings described here to a named project, and no RERA registration number for the unit has been cited.

What happens next

The next steps are the developers' compliance with the refund direction and any appeal they choose to file. Buyers who have a similar claim against a developer should check the date of their last demand letter and any cancellation notice, since those dates shape the limitation argument. Developers facing such claims should note that the commission has treated continued demands as keeping a dispute alive.