Mumbai: State Consumer Commission Rejects Nahar Builders' Plea Over 441-Day Delay, Upholds Ex Parte Order
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission rejected Nahar Builders' plea to condone a 441-day delay in challenging an ex parte order in a redevelopment-related consumer dispute. The Commission held that the developer failed to justify the delay, describing its approach to the litigation as casual, and dismissed the revision petition.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission declined to condone Nahar Builders' 441-day delay in challenging an ex parte order | Representational Image
Mumbai, July 8, 2026: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected an application filed by Nahar Builders seeking condonation of a 441-day delay in challenging an ex parte order against it by the district forum regarding conveyance and redevelopment issues.
The State Commission held that the developer had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the prolonged delay and observed that its approach towards the litigation had been “casual”.
Background Of The Dispute
The dispute arises from a consumer complaint filed in 2023 by advocate Sulaiman Bhimani and his wife, Munira Bhimani, against Vidhyanchal Cooperative Housing Society of Bandra (W) and others, including the developer.
The Bhimanis, who are residents of the society, had raised grievances over the alleged failure of the developer company to execute a conveyance deed and clear long-pending Collector's dues, which, according to them, had jeopardised the redevelopment of the more than 40-year-old building.
On June 11, 2024, the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed an ex parte order against the developer company after the latter failed to file its written statement within the prescribed period. The two-page order recorded that notice had been served on the developer on November 1, 2023.
Aggrieved by the order, Nahar Builders filed a revision petition before the State Consumer Commission, along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
Developer's Explanation Rejected
The developer contended that the notice in the consumer complaint had not reached its designated legal team or its appropriate officers responsible for handling such matters.
It claimed that internal communication channels and compliance teams had failed to escalate the matter because of a “genuine oversight”. The voluminous nature of administrative correspondence and restructuring within the organisation had further contributed to the lapse, it said.
The developer claimed that it became aware of the pending complaint and the ex parte order only during an internal audit and review in March 2025. It thereafter took steps to retrieve the case papers, consult lawyers, and file the revision petition.
It argued that the delay was caused by a bona fide lapse in internal coordination and not by wilful negligence, mala fide intent, or disregard for the legal process.
The Bhimanis opposed the plea, contending that the notice had been duly served on the developer and that it was expected to appear before the District Commission and file its written statement within the prescribed period. They argued that no sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay.
Commission's Observations
The State Commission noted that the notice had admittedly been served on the developer on November 1, 2023, while the ex parte order was passed on June 11, 2024. However, the revision petition was filed only on October 31, 2025.
Rejecting the developer's explanation, the Commission observed, “So it cannot be said that the petitioner (Nahar Builders) were diligent. In fact, after receipt of notice, their approach was casual and not paid proper attention to the litigation.”
The Commission further held that the huge delay of 441 days had not been properly explained and that the reasons cited by the developer were neither reasonable nor sufficient.
The State Commission referred to judicial precedents stressing that consumer disputes are governed by special limitation periods intended to ensure speedy adjudication. It observed that entertaining highly belated petitions without sufficient cause would defeat the objective of expeditious disposal under consumer law.
Also Watch:
ALSO READ
The Commission consequently rejected Nahar Builders' application seeking condonation of delay. As a result, the revision petition challenging the ex parte order was held to no longer survive for consideration.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
RECENT STORIES
-
Mumbai: State Consumer Commission Rejects Nahar Builders' Plea Over 441-Day Delay, Upholds Ex Parte... -
India's Higher Education Enrolment Reaches 4.5 Crore; AISHE 2023-24 Report Shows Record Growth In... -
Mumbai Rains Live Updates: IMD Predicts Intermittent Light To Moderate Showers Across City And... -
Dombivli Hospital Attack: 'My Daughter Is Scared,' Says Father Of Assaulted Doctor Demands Strict... -
Major League Baseball Partners With Suryakumar Yadav, Renews JioStar Broadcast Deal To Expand...
