Brands
Marico Q3 results: Rs 447 crore net profit, 27 per cent revenue surge
MUMBAI: Marico Limited delivered a bravura performance in the third quarter of 2026, reporting a 27 per cent year-on-year jump in consolidated revenue to Rs 3,537 crore. The FMCG giant saw its India business grow by 27 per cent, bolstered by price hikes across core portfolios to offset stubborn inflation in raw materials. International markets kept pace with 21 per cent constant currency growth, led by a sharp 29 per cent rise in Bangladesh.
The quarter was marked by a major strategic move: on 26 January, Marico announced a definitive agreement to invest in Zea Maize, the parent company of premium gourmet snacking brand 4700BC. This follows the company’s aggressive diversification strategy, aiming to grow its food segment to eight times its 2020 revenue by 2027.
The domestic business, which pulled in Rs 2,681 crore, was buoyed by price hikes and a shift toward e-commerce and “quick commerce”. While higher input costs squeezed year-on-year gross margins, a recent dip in copra prices offered some relief. Value-added hair oils (vaho) were particularly slick, growing by 29 per cent.
While gross margins remained under year-on-year pressure due to high input costs, the company reported a 12 per cent rise in profit after tax to Rs 447 crore. Marico managing director and chief executive Saugata Gupta, noted that the firm remains “on track” to deliver over 25 per cent revenue growth for the full year as input pressures begin to subside.
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.
