Mumbai, April 15, 2026: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has convicted a builder and its partners for failing to comply with a long-pending order directing execution of a conveyance deed in favour of a housing society in Malad.
The Commission has penalised Thakkar Builders & Developers with a fine of Rs 10,000, while the firm’s partners, Manish Kutmutia and Ajit Thakkar, have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a term of six months each under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, along with a fine of Rs 10,000 each.
The accused developers were held guilty of non-compliance with the Commission’s order passed in 2011 in a consumer complaint filed by Saidham Enclave Co-operative Housing Society.
Commission clarifies legal position
Further, the Commission, presided over by Justice S.P. Tavade and member Vijay C. Premchandani, clarified that a separate contempt application filed by the society was not maintainable, as specific penal provisions exist under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Failure to comply with 2011 order
The Commission noted that despite clear directions issued on September 29, 2011, the developer failed to execute the conveyance deed and obtain the occupation/completion certificate within the stipulated six months, which expired in March 2012.
Observations on legal obligations
“We have also gone through the order sheet of this Commission, wherein it is categorically stated by this Commission on July 15, 2019, that issues regarding right of access between the parties can be agitated before the competent civil court. Further directions were given to the accused persons to comply with the order and file a compliance report. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the sanctioned plan in respect of the building construction mentions an area of 1882.70 sq. metres, with a conversion area of 1520 sq. metres. Thus, the final order is to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the land upon which the building is constructed as per the sanctioned plan dated May 31, 1996. The right of access to the land sought to be conveyed involves civil rights which may be agitated by the parties before the civil court, but that cannot be a ground to refuse or impose conditions for non-compliance with the order of this Commission passed in the original consumer complaint. Hence, we conclude that the accused are guilty of disobedience of the order passed by this Commission in the consumer complaint for executing the conveyance deed,” the Commission observed.
Also Watch:
Builder’s defence rejected
The Commission rejected the builder’s defence that it had provided draft conveyance deeds and was willing to comply. It observed that the proposed conveyance contained conditions based on modified sanctioned plans, which violated the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA). It held that such conditional compliance could not be accepted and did not absolve the developer of its statutory obligations.
“The accused are guilty of disobedience of the order passed by this Commission,” the bench observed, adding that the failure to execute the conveyance deed persisted even at the time of the present order.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
