MAM
Goldmine Advertising wins social & digital media mandate for Canara Bank
Mumbai: Goldmine Advertising has won the social and digital media mandate for Canara Bank, one of India’s leading public sector banks. This strategic partnership empowers Goldmine to amplify the bank’s digital presence, establish deeper connections with audiences, and enhance its rapport with younger consumers, positioning Canara Bank as a forward-thinking leader in the digital space.
Goldmine Advertising will lead the development and execution of comprehensive social media strategies, ensuring Canara Bank’s digital presence resonates with today’s tech-savvy banking consumers. The agency will strengthen the bank’s visibility and engagement across key social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, and YouTube. Additionally, Goldmine will focus on community building, online reputation management, and implementing SEO strategies to help Canara Bank stay competitive in an ever-evolving digital landscape.
Goldmine Advertising, CEO, Pratik Singla shared his excitement about the collaboration: “Canara Bank is a prestigious legacy brand with a nationwide reach. This partnership strengthens our BFSI portfolio and presents an exciting opportunity to leverage our expertise to enhance their social media presence. Our teams are excited to craft impactful campaigns and push creative boundaries with our in-house content studio and digital media experts.”
With a strong focus on the BFSI sector, Goldmine brings valuable experience to the table, having worked with top-tier banks including Indian Bank, Union Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, and many others. This expertise is key to driving Canara Bank’s digital transformation and ensuring its continued success in the digital realm.
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.
