MAM
Rebel Foods awards Sweet Truth TV campaign to DCMN
NEW DELHI: DCMN India has won the mandate for Rebel Foods’ premium Western dessert brand Sweet Truth. The marketing campaign consists of a brandformance TV flight for the Indian market, which was launched on 15 October 2020.
Aside from media planning and booking, DCMN will track and optimize the campaign’s performance using their proprietary TV attribution tool DC Analytics. The ads are being rolled out nationwide, including in the 35 cities where Sweet Truth is available. The campaign is targeting young men and women who are quality-conscious western dessert lovers. And the cherry on top: Users can give a dessert to a beloved fellow sweet tooth with a personalised video.
“We are excited about being able to support Sweet Truth’s growth with a very targeted campaign and all analytics as well as media expertise available to us. Given the fast development of this industry, especially in the context of the ongoing pandemic, brandformance TV is the perfect approach to grow the Sweet Truth brand among its target groups,” said Bindu Balakrishnan, country head of DCMN India.
Sweet Truth is the fourth brand from the Rebel Foods ecosystem that DCMN is onboarding. The two companies are already working together to grow the Behrouz Biryani, OvenStory and Faasos brands. The Sweet Truth account will also be serviced from DCMN’s Gurgaon office and will be led by Balakrishnan.
On the launch of the campaign, Rebel Foods VP-brands Nishant Kedia said it will speak to their target audience of urban dessert lovers with a refined palate in a meaningful way.
Sweet Truth is India's online delivery service for premium Western desserts – for all occasions. Its parent company is Rebel Foods (formerly Faasos), which runs 350+ cloud kitchens delivering across India, South East Asia, UK and UAE.
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.
