MAM
Nu-Shakti ventures into e-commerce, boosting customer reach
MUMBAI: Nu-Shakti – a Royal DSM brand – has entered the burgeoning multitrillion-dollar e-commerce space by partnering with Flipkart and BigBasket. The brand’s nutritious, locally relevant, affordable food and beverage products are now easily available to consumers online.
Royal DSM is a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and sustainable living. Through Nu-Shakti, it is addressing the need for proper nutrition in daily meals across India by launching a one-of-its-kind pre-mix micronutrient supplement enriched with essential nutrients and vitamins to provide complete nutrition.
Alok Kohli, Business Director – DSM India, said, “Nu-Shakti has entered the growing e-commerce space in India, aiming to make its product portfolio available to consumers in the comfort of their homes. We want to make a positive impact on the health of people across the country via our innovative products that address the widespread nutritional deficiency. Our products enable easy fortification of food at home without compromising on taste or appearance of the food and providing consumers with a nutritious, balanced diet.”
Besides Chennai, the products have received an overwhelming response from upcountry markets such as Madurai, Coimbatore, Nagercoil and other cities of Tamil Nadu.
Nu-Shakti’s product range includes Powermix for rice (fortified rice kernels), Powermix for atta (fortified atta/flour) and MixMe (fortified orange-flavoured beverage mix). Available at select modern trade outlets and kirana (retail) stores in Tamil Nadu, Nu-Shakti products have been introduced at affordable per-unit prices starting from Rs5.
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.
