Brands
Bombay HC lifts ban on Maggi; Nestle to lab-test product
NEW DELHI: Just a day after the Government announced it was moving a Consumer Court, the Bombay High Court lifted the nationwide ban on Maggi Noodles but asked Nestle India to test five variants of noodles at three accredited labs.
The Court said in a sharp indictment that principles of natural justice were not followed by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in passing the impugned order of ban.
Holding that tests must be completed within six weeks, the Court told Nestle India that if test reports suggest that lead is within permissible limit then it can start the sale of products.
In June, the FSSAI said the popular snack was found “hazardous and unsafe for human consumption.”
More than 2,700 samples of Maggi noodles have been tested by laboratories in India and abroad in recent months, and each test confirmed the level of lead to be “far below permissible limits,” Nestle had said in a recent statement.
The Department of Consumer Affairs’ claim for Rs 639.95 crore in damages from Nestle is to be heard by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in probably the class-action suit against a multinational. The ruling of the quasi-judicial body will be legally binding.
In June, the country’s food safety regulator banned Maggi after excessive amounts of lead and monosodium glutamate (MSG) were reported in samples tested in Uttar Pradesh.
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.
