Commission Rejects Nahar Builders' Delay Plea Over Bandra West Housing Dispute
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected an application by Nahar Builders to condone a 441-day delay in challenging an ex parte order regarding conveyance and redevelopment issues at the Vidhyanchal Cooperative Housing Society in Bandra West, Mumbai.
The decision, reported on July 8, 2026, maintains the developer's legal obligation to resolve its failure to execute a conveyance deed and clear long-pending Collector's dues for the housing society.
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed in 2023 by advocate Sulaiman Bhimani and his wife, Munira Bhimani, who reside in the Bandra West housing society. The complainants raised grievances over the developer's failure to execute the conveyance deed and clear outstanding Collector's dues, which they argued had stalled the redevelopment of their 40-year-old building.
On June 11, 2024, the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed an ex parte order against Nahar Builders after the developer failed to file a written statement within the required timeframe. Records showed that the developer had been served a notice regarding the complaint on November 1, 2023.
Nahar Builders subsequently filed a revision petition along with an application to condone the delay, claiming the notice had not reached its designated legal team or appropriate officers due to a "genuine oversight" and internal communication lapses. The developer asserted it only learned of the ex parte order during an internal audit in March 2025, leading to the filing of the revision petition on October 31, 2025.
The Bhimanis opposed the developer's application, stating that the notice had been duly served and that no sufficient cause had been provided to justify the extensive delay.
The State Commission rejected the developer's explanations, describing its approach to the litigation as "casual" and lacking diligence. The Commission noted that the revision petition was filed nearly two years after the initial notice was served. It emphasized that consumer disputes are subject to special limitation periods to ensure speedy adjudication, and allowing such a delay would defeat the purpose of the law.
With the rejection of the delay condonation application, the revision petition challenging the original ex parte order no longer survives.
