MAM
Rajasthan Patrika wins another laurel with SOPA award
Rajasthan Patrika has added another feather to its cap with the Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) Award 2002 for “Excellence In Reporting”. SOPA is an institution of Asian publishers of newspapers and periodicals, which institutes annual awards for editorial excellence.
Patrika Editor Gulab Kothari received the award given by the ‘Hong Kong-based Society of Publishers in Asia’ at a function held in Hong Kong on Thursday. The newspaper has earlier been conferred the award for “Best in Print” by the IFRA, Asia, for its ” Publish Asia 2002″ award. At the national level as well, the newspaper retained its place for the national award for ” Excellence in Printing” this year.
The daily, currently in its 47th year of publication, claims to cater to about 6.53 million readers, says a press release. The newspaper is seen as a pioneer in Indian journalism as it has moved with the times, absorbing technological innovations and changes but never compromising on basic values and high standards of reporting and writing.
The 16 page broad sheet newspaper has a daily circulation of 625,000 copies and is simultaneously published from total 10 cities – Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner, Kota, Sri Ganganagar, Sikar, Bhilwara and Alwar in Rajasthan and from Bangalore.
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.
