MAM
Ten Cricket ropes in 12 sponsors for India-South Africa series
MUMBAI: Ten Cricket has roped in 12 sponsors for the India-South Africa cricket series, moving in line with its ad revenue target of Rs 1.4 billion from the tournament that kicks off on 16 December.
Ten Cricket claims to have already sold ad inventory worth Rs 1.3 billion. “Ten Cricket is already booked to capacity inventory and there is a continuing demand,” says Zeel chief revenue officer and head niche channels Joy Chakraborthy.
The broadcaster has signed Tata Docomo, Hero Honda and Micromax as co-sponsors for the India-South Africa series.
The tournament will include three Test Matches, one Twenty20 International and five ODIs.
Chakraborthy said, “We have signed up 12 sponsors – The associate sponsors are IDBI Federal Life Insurance, Maruti Suzuki, Colgate, Berger, Religare Enterprises, Manappuram Gold Loan, Aditya Birla Group and I-Ball.”
Ten Sports CEO Atul Pande said, “Ten Cricket will bring telecast in a viewer friendly format with expert analysis, graphics and world class commentary. At the same time Taj India’s distribution and marketing strength will bring lot of value to advertisers, sponsors and partners.”
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.
