MAM
Rudolf Fernando appointed as National Head of Global Advertisers
MUMBAI: Mumbai based, an outdoor agency Global advertisers have been appointed Rudolf Fernando as a National Head of Global Advertisers.
Fernando will be looking after four regional sales divisions of the agency. His core responsibility involves strategising, designing, execution and media planning of outdoor campaign executed across the country He will report to Global Advertisers MD Sanjeev Gupta.
Over his 20 year career, Fernando had started his career with Free Press Journal in Mumbai. He also worked with a publication house like Dainik Bhaskar and TV Channels like Sab TV.
Prior to joining the advertising firm, he was heading Navbharat Media Solution’s sales department where he also led various innovative and BTL activities.
Commenting on the appointment Fernando said, “I have become a part of out-of-home advertising medium, my role has widened with challenges and opportunities. Through my skills and understanding of the media industry, I am confident to expand the client portfolio of Global in the coming season.”
Global Advertisers MD Sanjeev Gupta added, “Rudolf will leverage our presence across four regions and he will also be assisting the team leaders in pitching new clients. His expertise and experience will bring out innovation, fresh approach and better execution at a larger scale.”
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.
