Maharashtra Consumer Commission Rejects Nahar Builders’ 441-Day Delay Plea in Bandra Conveyance and Leasehold Dispute

State Commission finds developer’s approach “casual”; Collector proceedings concerning alleged lease-condition breaches, land-rent arrears and premium liability add to redevelopment concerns at Vindhiachal CHSL.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected an application filed by Nahar Builders seeking condonation of a 441-day delay in filing a revision petition against an ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban.

The revision arose from a consumer complaint filed by Advocate Sulaiman Bhimani and Munira Sulaiman Bhimani against the developer, Vindhiachal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and other respondents. The complaint concerns the alleged failure to execute conveyance documents and resolve leasehold-related issues affecting the property at Mount Mary Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai.

The original complainants were represented before the State Commission by Advocate Sharon Fernandez, who opposed and defended the revision application on their behalf.

Builder’s Revision Petition Fails After 441-Day Delay

Nahar Builders challenged the District Commission’s order dated June 11, 2024, through Revision Petition No. RP/25/77. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order against the developer after it failed to file its written statement within the prescribed period.

The record shows that notice of the consumer complaint had been served upon the developer on November 1, 2023. However, the revision petition was filed only on October 31, 2025, after a delay of 441 days.

The developer sought condonation of delay by contending that the notice had not reached the appropriate legal team or responsible officers. It claimed that the consumer complaint and ex-parte order came to its knowledge only during an internal audit and file review in March 2025.

The complainants opposed the application, submitting that the developer had received notice and had sufficient opportunity to respond before the District Commission.

State Commission: Administrative Lapse Does Not Explain Prolonged Delay

The State Commission rejected the explanation offered by the developer. It observed that the delay had not been properly explained and that the developer’s conduct after service of notice did not demonstrate diligence.

The Commission held that internal communication gaps, administrative lapses or delayed escalation within an organisation cannot automatically amount to sufficient cause for condoning a substantial delay in consumer litigation.

The Bench observed:

“There is huge delay of 441 days in filing the present revision petition, which is not properly explained.”

The Commission further noted that, after service of notice, the developer’s approach towards the proceedings was “casual.”

Consumer Law Requires Timely Action

The State Commission relied upon settled principles that consumer disputes are governed by special limitation periods to ensure speedy adjudication.

It referred to Supreme Court precedents including Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, Anil Kumar Sharma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy.

The Commission held that limitation provisions cannot be diluted by routinely condoning substantial delays without a genuine and satisfactory explanation. It observed that allowing belated revision petitions without sufficient cause would defeat the object of expeditious consumer justice.

Collector Proceedings Raise Leasehold, Conveyance and Redevelopment Concerns

The consumer dispute is connected with a wider leasehold and title issue concerning Vindhiachal Co-operative Housing Society, an ageing residential building at Mount Mary Road, Bandra (West).

Collector records concerning the property show proceedings against M/s S.B. & U.B. Jain, the developer entity associated with Nahar Builders, in relation to alleged breach of lease conditions and an alleged unauthorised transfer of leasehold rights in favour of the society.

The Collector record refers to land-rent arrears quantified at approximately ₹3.33 crore as of December 31, 2021. It also refers to a premium or charge calculated on the basis of 25% of unearned income under the applicable Government Resolution.

The documents indicate that the Collector proceedings involve questions concerning renewal of leasehold rights, land-rent arrears, alleged breach of lease conditions and the transfer of leasehold rights. These proceedings are relevant because unresolved title and leasehold issues may affect conveyance, regularisation and redevelopment of a co-operative housing society.

The amount referred to in the Collector proceedings should not be described as a final penalty imposed on the developer. The proceedings refer to land-rent arrears, premium or unearned-income charges, and possible action arising from alleged breach of lease conditions. The final liability and consequences remain subject to the Collector’s proceedings and remedies available in law.

Why Conveyance Matters for Housing Societies

A conveyance deed is essential for a co-operative housing society to obtain clear title over the land and building. Without conveyance or valid assignment of leasehold rights, a society may face difficulty in redevelopment, securing finance, obtaining permissions and protecting members’ interests.

In leasehold properties, the issue becomes more complex because the society must also ensure that lease rent, renewal obligations and Collector requirements are addressed. Where the developer has contractual or statutory obligations to execute conveyance or assignment documents, prolonged non-compliance can create serious difficulties for flat purchasers and the society.

The complaint filed by Sulaiman Bhimani and Munira Sulaiman Bhimani raises issues relating to conveyance, leasehold rights and the alleged burden of Collector-related dues. These allegations are yet to be finally adjudicated on merits in the consumer proceedings.

Revision Petition Does Not Survive

Since the State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay, the revision petition itself did not survive for consideration.

The Commission passed no order as to costs.

The order is important for homebuyers, housing societies and developers. It reiterates that parties served with consumer notices must act promptly. It also highlights how unresolved conveyance and leasehold issues can become major obstacles in redevelopment projects, particularly in older co-operative housing societies on Collector leasehold land.

Media Coverage

This significant order has also been reported by the Free Press Journal. The report highlights the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s rejection of Nahar Builders’ plea seeking condonation of a 441-day delay in challenging the ex-parte order in the conveyance and redevelopment-related consumer dispute.

Read the media report: Mumbai: State Consumer Commission Rejects Nahar Builders’ Plea Over 441-Day Delay, Upholds Ex Parte Order

Case Details

Case Title: Nahar Builders (India) v. Munira Sulaiman Bhimani & Ors.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. RP/25/77 with IA/25/538/2025
Forum: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai
Date of Order: June 25, 2026
Bench: Justice S.P. Tavade, President and Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
For Nahar Builders: Adv. Kush Lahankar
For Original Complainants: Adv. Sharon Fernandez
Original Complaint: CC/362/2023 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban
Original Complainants: Advocate Sulaiman Bhimani and Munira Sulaiman Bhimani