The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, comprising Presiding Member Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi and Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, passed the order on June 17, 2026 in Consumer Complaint No. SC/27/CC/2024/119, filed by Mohamed Jalil Abdulla Harnekar and his wife Asger Shabnam Mohamed Jalil Harnekar, residents of Mangaon, Raigad, against Saquib Shaikh Ahmed Mukadam, Sajid Shaikh Ahmed Mukadam, M/S Universal Housing & Infrastructure Co. of Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai, and M/S Universal Construction Co. of Reay Road, Mumbai.

The Buyers and Their Dream

Mohamed Jalil Harnekar works as an accountant with Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd. in Kuwait. His wife, Asger Shabnam, is a professor at Mangaon Junior College in Raigad. Living roughly 150 kilometres from Mumbai, the couple had one goal — to secure a permanent home in the city. They pooled their life savings, sold gold ornaments, and placed their trust in a developer who would betray it at every turn for over a decade.

How It Started: The Dongri Project (2013)

In 2013, Saquib Mukadam and Sajid Mukadam approached the Harnekar family and pitched a residential project on land bearing C.S. No. 1845, Mandvi Division, 18 Jail Road North, opposite Habib Hospital, Dongri, Mumbai — to be developed under the name M/S Universal Housing & Infrastructure Co. They promised a 660 sq. ft. flat on the 10th, 11th, or 12th floor, with construction to begin in November 2013 and possession to be handed over within 36 months.

An allotment letter dated November 28, 2013 was executed and notarised. The Harnekar family paid ₹30 lakh via RTGS on August 7, 2013, followed by ₹10 lakh in cash across three instalments — totalling ₹40 lakh paid upfront against a total consideration of ₹60 lakh.

Not a single brick was laid.

Despite having received over 20% of the total consideration — the threshold under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, which legally mandates execution and registration of an Agreement for Sale — the developers never registered any such agreement. They continued to offer evasive assurances and fabricated excuses.

The Switchover: Bay View, Mazgaon (2016–2018)

When the Dongri Project collapsed entirely and the developers admitted they could not obtain the necessary permissions, they proposed — instead of a refund — that the ₹40 lakh paid be adjusted towards a new project. They further promised an additional ₹10 lakh as compensation for the failed project, effectively committing ₹50 lakh toward the alternative.

The new project was styled “Bay View,” proposed to be developed by M/S Universal Construction Co. on land bearing C.S. Nos. 318, 319, 320, and 322 at Matharpakhadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai — 400 010. The Harnekars were promised Flat No. 503, on the 5th floor of Building No. I, measuring approximately 760 sq. ft. super built-up area and 453 sq. ft. RERA carpet area. The total consideration was finalised at ₹90 lakh.

Between January 2016 and September 2018, the Harnekars paid the remaining ₹40 lakh in instalments via RTGS and cash. By 2018, the developers had received the entire ₹90 lakh — 100% of the agreed consideration. Still, no Agreement for Sale was registered. Still, no possession was given.

Admission of Failure — and the First Bounced Cheques (2019)

In September 2019, the developers formally admitted in writing that they could not deliver Flat No. 503. They offered to refund ₹90 lakh plus ₹25 lakh as compensation — a total liability of ₹1.15 crore — acknowledged in a letter dated September 7, 2019. Saquib Mukadam issued three cheques drawn on DCB Bank, Hasanabad Branch, aggregating ₹1.15 crore.

When the Harnekars deposited the cheques on October 17, 2019, all three were dishonoured — reason: Insufficient Funds.

Around the same time, the Harnekars made a disturbing discovery: Flat No. 503 in Bay View, the very flat they had paid ₹90 lakh for, had been quietly sold to a third party by the developers — even as they were stringing the original buyers along with promises of possession.

More Promises, More Bounced Cheques (2019–2021)

After the Harnekars issued a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Saquib Mukadam executed a letter dated December 20, 2019, again admitting the prior representations and assuring revival of the flat allotment. A further legal notice dated January 11, 2020 yielded yet another promise — this time a refund of ₹1.15 crore plus an additional ₹10 lakh compensation, taking the admitted liability to ₹1.25 crore.

On June 29, 2021, Saquib and Sajid Mukadam executed a notarised Memorandum of Understanding formally admitting liability of ₹1.25 crore. Four cheques drawn on ICICI Bank were issued aggregating ₹1.25 crore. The MOU itself warned that dishonour would attract civil and criminal consequences.

On September 24, 2021, all four ICICI Bank cheques bounced — reason: Insufficient Funds. The second deliberate default was now on record.

Police Complaint and Partial Payment (2022–2024)

Having been deceived repeatedly, the Harnekars filed a police complaint at Byculla Police Station on May 25, 2022, invoking Sections 403, 406, 417, 418, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code — charges covering criminal breach of trust, fraud, and cheating. Statements were recorded on September 18, 2022, and February 8, 2023.

During police proceedings on February 8, 2023, Sajid Mukadam made a partial payment of ₹20 lakh toward the admitted liability, reducing the outstanding to ₹1.05 crore. An undertaking and promissory note dated February 10, 2023 once again admitted liability of ₹1.25 crore, with a stipulation of 15% interest in the event of default.

The developers then issued cheque No. 0147 dated December 31, 2023 for ₹25 lakh — dishonoured. Cheque No. 155 dated April 30, 2024 for ₹5 lakh — dishonoured again.

Before the Commission

The Harnekars filed Consumer Complaint No. SC/27/CC/2024/119 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. Notice was issued to all four opposite parties, but they failed to respond. After notice was served through paper publication on February 11, 2025, the Mukadams and both firms still did not appear. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex-parte against all four opposite parties on September 22, 2025.

Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi and Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan heard the complaint on the basis of the Harnekars’ affidavit of evidence, a compilation of allotment letters, payment receipts, bank statements, MOUs, dishonoured cheques, and police complaint records — all of which remained unchallenged.

What the Commission Held

The Commission found all four opposite parties jointly and severally guilty of deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the same Act.

On the question of refund, the Commission noted that since Flat No. 503 had already been sold to a third party, the primary prayer for possession had become infructuous. The refund amount was fixed at ₹1.05 crore — being the admitted liability of ₹1.25 crore reduced by the ₹20 lakh partial payment made in 2023.

Interest was awarded at 10% per annum from June 29, 2021 — the date of the notarised MOU — until actual realisation. The Commission moderated the interest rate from the 15% claimed by the Harnekars, aligning it with principles of restitution laid down by the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. If the developers fail to comply within 60 days of receiving the order, the interest rate escalates automatically to 15% per annum from the date of default.

The Commission additionally directed payment of ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.

What This Order Means for Homebuyers

This order carries several important lessons for homebuyers across Maharashtra.

First, it affirms that shifting a buyer from one failed project to another does not extinguish the developer’s liability — it simply transfers and compounds it. The Commission treated the entire arc from the Dongri Project through Bay View as one continuous course of deficiency and unfair trade practice.

Second, it establishes that written admissions — MOUs, promissory notes, acknowledgment letters — are powerful legal tools. In this case, the notarised MOU of June 2021 became the anchor for the entire refund calculation, including the interest start date.

Third, it reinforces that selling a flat already allotted to a paying buyer constitutes not just a breach of contract but a statutory violation under RERA and a consumer rights violation severe enough to disentitle the developer from any equitable relief.

Fourth, the escalating interest clause — from 10% to 15% upon non-compliance — is a meaningful enforcement mechanism that places real financial consequences on builders who treat consumer forum orders as optional.

The Harnekars waited 13 years. They sold their gold. They travelled 150 kilometres repeatedly to chase a developer who kept bouncing cheques. This order does not undo that suffering — but it puts a number on accountability.

Also Read: Real Estate cases comprise of 10% of the total cases in Consumer Commissions

The post Builders Took ₹90 Lakh, Sold Flat to Someone Else — Consumer Commission Orders ₹1.05 Crore Refund appeared first on Square Feat India.