MAM
DDB MudraMax to be chief consultants in outdoor solutions for Ludhiana
MUMBAI: Post a multi-agency pitch, the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana, Punjab, has appointed DDB MudraMax as its consultant for the preparation of a ‘Master Plan for Outdoor Advertisement’ in Municipal Corporation Limits of Ludhiana, Punjab. The agencies who were present for the pitch included Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System, Tandon Urban Solutions and IBI Consultancy India. There is no incumbent on this account.
Currently, outdoor advertising in Ludhiana is regulated by MCL, LDA, GLADA, PUDA Indian Railway etc, and each of these bodies have their own set of rules and regulations, tender process, revenue generation and sharing.
As a fallout of different rulings and existence of different viewpoints there is a lack of a cohesive policy on the subject. Along with MCL, LDA, PWD and other government bodies, the other stake holders involved in advertising have also voiced the need to define a comprehensive policy on outdoor for Ludhiana. These include the city; the industry, the citizens and individual NGOs.
As a consultant, DDB MudraMax will be responsible for providing the best and most innovative ideas and recommend best practices to be adopted for Ludhiana’s outdoor advertisement industry including street furniture for Ludhiana City. The scope of work involves a thorough study of the existing outdoor advertisement policy and preparation of a concept plan that explains the ideas and provides the best practices and applications to be adopted in the case of Ludhiana. This will also include a master plan for outdoor advertisement, street furniture for Ludhiana City including the detailed design specifications, material and dimensions along with incorporating the essential signs.
Commenting on this DDB Mudra Max outdoor and experiential retail President Mandeep Malhotra said, “We were excited to partner Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana in the master plan for the outdoor policy. It is going to be a first-of-its-kind for the city in the coming times. Ludhiana being a forward looking entrepreneurial city had to be the first to take the initiative. We ourselves are looking forward to make the city look wonderful and aesthetically great.”
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
