MAM
FICCI retains PKSV Sagar as sports panel chair, Adesara stays co-chair
MUMBAI: The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has reappointed GMR Sports president PKSV Sagar as chairperson of its sports committee for another term, signalling continuity in its strategy to deepen private sector participation in Indian sport.
Sagar will continue to be supported by Adani Sportsline chief business officer Sanjay Adesara, who remains co-chairperson. WordsWork Communications founder Neha Mathur Rastogi has also been retained as secretary of the committee and convenor of Turf, FICCI’s annual sports conclave.
During the previous term, the committee played an active role in shaping policy discourse, issuing sectoral recommendations and studies, and advocating increased private investment in grassroots sports development across select states.
Responding to his re-election, Sagar said the renewed mandate reflected the committee’s collective progress in promoting a more sports-conscious India, with structured and purpose-driven corporate involvement.
FICCI president Anant Goenka and director general Jyoti Vij welcomed the reappointments, praising the committee’s contribution to strengthening the country’s sporting ecosystem and extending their best wishes for the new term.
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.
