State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hubtown Greenwoods Flat Buyers Welfare ... vs Hubtown Limited & 2 Ors. on 9 April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON: 30.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 09.04.2026
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO, 150 OF 2017
Hubtown Greenwoods Flat Buyers Welfare Association
Having its office at:
Building No. C-3, Flat No. 1701,
Laxmi Narayan Residency, Pokhran Road No. 1,
Thane (West) - 400 606, Maharashtra ... Complainant
Versus
1. Hubtown limited (Earlier known as Ackruti City Limited)
Through its Managing Director,
Ackruti Center Point, 6th Floor,
Central Road, Marol MIDC,
Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093
Maharashtra
2. Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah
Managing Director, Hubtown Limited
Ackruti Center Point, 6th Floor,
Central Road, Marol MIDC,
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093
Maharashtra
3. Hemant Mahipatray shah
Wholetime Director, Hubtown Limited
Ackruti Center Point, 6th Floor,
Central Road, Marol MIDC,
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093
Maharashtra ... Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Complainant: Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate &
Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Advocate &
CC/150/2017 Page 1 of 10
i
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate &
Mr. Jeevan Ballav Panda, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate (V.C)
Mr, Bhaskar Nayak, Advocate &
Mr Vaishnay Kumar, Advocate
ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant Association against the Opposite Parties, inter alia, praying for directions to the OPs to deliver peaceful possession of flats along with Occupation Certificates, to execute conveyance deeds in favour of all allottees, and to pay interest @ 24% per annum for the delay in handing over the possession and Rs.45,00,00,000/-(Rs Fourty Five Crores) to all members for mental agony and Rs. 5,00,000/- as litigation cost also the refund of Service Tax charged from the members charged during instalments alongwith the interest.
2. The main prayer in the complaint was for possession with amenities and execution of the conveyance deed; However during the hearing on 30/01/26 the counsel for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of this complaint, the OPs obtained the OCs for all the towers and subsequently delivered possession to them. However, he contends that all the promised amenities were not provided at the time of giving possession or even till today. The complainant is now seeking delay compensation and directions to the OPs to provide the lacking amenities and facilities.
3. The Complainant Association was registered on 22.07.2016 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Complaint was filed on behalf of 222 I members who are allottees of the residential project "Hubtown Greenwoods" at Thane, Maharashtra.
4. It is averred/stated in the complaint that:-
i) The Opposite Parties launched the residential project "Hubtown Greenwoods" in the year 2009, comprising six wings (A to F) with different promised dates of possession as per the respective Agreements for Sale:CC/150/2017 Page 2 of 10
- Wing A: May 2013
- Wing B: November 2011
- Wing C: November 2011
- Wing D: December 2012
- Wing E: December 2012
- Wing F: August 2013
ii) The Complainant alleges gross delay in handing over possession, with delays ranging from 39 to over 60 months as of the date of filing. It is also alleged that the OPs unilaterally extended possession dates, changed sanctioned plans, and failed to disclose that the project was part of the Rental Housing Scheme of MMRDA. The Complainant further contends that the OPs insisted on illegal conditions, such as signing Indemnity Bonds and withdrawing legal proceedings, as a pre-condition for handing over possession.
5. OP's in their written statement/reply stated that:-
(i) They have preliminary objections on maintainability, contending that the Complainant Association is not a "recognized consumer association"
within the meaning of Section 12(l)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is argued that the Association was formed with a restricted membership and only to litigate, not to serve consumer interests. The OPs also contended that the dispute involves an arbitration clause and that the members are investors, not consumers.
(ii) On the merits, the OPs submitted that the delay was caused by factors beyond their control, such as the implementation of the Rental Housing Scheme, delays in governmental approvals, and a shortage of construction materials. They also pointed out that several allottees have already taken possession and that the project has been substantially completed with Occupation Certificates being obtained for various wings between 2017 and 2023.
6. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions of the parties are summed up as follows:
6,1 Complainants contentions:CC/150/2017 Page 3 of 10
a) The complainant is a registered Welfare Association of buyers, representing 222 members (as of 15 November 2016), all of whom are allottees in the residential project "Hubtown Greenwoods" at Thane (formerly known as Ackruti Greenwoods). The complaint has been filed against Opposite Party No. 1 for inordinate delay in construction and delivery of the residential units. The Complaint includes the Certificate of Registration, Memorandum of Association, and the list of members.
b) Opposite Party No. 1, along with its directors (Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3), represented that they would construct and timely deliver apartments in lush green surroundings. Due to their inability to comply with legal obligations under the Agreement for Sale executed with the allottees the possession was delayed.
c) Opposite Party No. 1 is a company engaged in real estate development in residential and commercial segments. Opposite Party No. 2 is the Managing Director of Opposite Party No. 1, responsible for day-to-day business and supervision of the company. Opposite Party No. 3 is the Whole Time Director of Opposite Party No. 1, and both Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are personally engaged in the supervision of the Project.
(d) The reliefs sought includes possession of flats along with Occupancy Certificates, execution of the conveyance deed in favour of all allottees, and delay compensation till the date of possession.
6.2 PR's contentions.
a) The Complainant Association, while having only 222 members, seeks reliefs for 951 allottees, meaning 729 allottees have no grievance regarding delay in possession or refund of service tax, and the Association did not obtain a mandate from those allottees before seeking relief on their behalf.
b) The Association has filed its registration certificate under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but the issue is whether it qualifies as a "recognized consumer association" under the Explanation to Section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as not every voluntary association automatically becomes a recognized consumer association.
c) The Memorandum of Association shows restrictive features: the name is limited to "Hubtown Greenwoods" flat buyers; the office address is away CC/150/2017 Page 4 of 10 from the flat buyers; the aims and objects include general welfare activities but are not exclusively consumer-focused.
d) The membership criteria restrict membership only to flat purchasers who intend to file a consumer complaint or other legal proceedings against Hubtown Limited for possession of flats, which defeats the purpose of a genuine consumer association.
e) Each of the 222 members is already in possession of their respective flats, extinguishing the scope for new membership, and this membership criterion undermines the Association's claim to be a recognized consumer association under Section 13(2)(b) of the 1986 Act.
f) Recognition as a consumer association is granted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, and such recognition entitles associations to government grants; the Association's claim to represent unidentified allottees with no grievance.
g) The Association has deliberately concealed that 69 of its 222 members, including 7 out of 11 founder/life members and all three authorized signatories, have settled and withdrawn their claims from the present complaint after selling their flats for profit, inviting action under Section 13(5) of the 1986 Act (analogous to Section 38(10) of the 2019 Act).
7. This case was heard at length from both sides on. The said order, which is reproduced below, captures in brief the arguments of the parties. Order dated : 30.01.2026 "1. Heard counsel for both sides. Arguments concluded today.
2. Although the main prayer in the complaint was for possession with amenities and execution of the conveyance deed, at the outset, the counsel for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of this complaint, the OPs obtained the OCs for all the towers and subsequently delivered possession to them. However, he contends that all the promised amenities were not provided at the time of giving possession or even till today.
3. Hence, the complainant is now seeking delay compensation and directions to the OPs to provide the lacking amenities and facilities.
CC/150/2017 Page 5 of 104. The complainant, in their written submissions filed on 09.02.2024, has summed up, wing- wise, the committed date ofpossession as per the agreement, the date of receiving OC, and the delay, entitling them to delay compensation as per their contentions. In this regard, the counsel for the OPs argued that the delay was on account of force majeure reasons and delay on the part of the Government Authorities in granting the requisite approvals. In this regard, they have drawn our attention to Clause 2.4 of the agreement, which states that the possession date shall mean May 2013 (in respect of wing A) or such extended date due to conditions mentioned in this agreement or force majeure (page 96). They have also drawn our attention to Clause 2.11, which lists various acts of force majeure (page 98), and it includes delay on the part of authorities in granting approvals. He further contends that the delay was on account of the State Government insisting on including the project under the Renta! Housing Scheme (RHS). Although, in their written version, in paragraph 13, they admit that at the time of issuing the brochure, the project was not linked to RHS.
5. As regards the amenities, the counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the brochure at page 75 & 77 and states that except for the dub, which is also locked and not functional, other amenities are not in place. To this, the counsel for the OPs submitted that all the amenities mentioned in the brochure/ promised are ready, fairly admitting that these have not been made operational. In this regard, he drew our attention to clause 10 of the agreement (page 109), submitting that the apex body/ federation of various societies for different wings has to be formed, to whom such facilities need to be handed over. He further submits that as soon as such apex body/ federation is formed, the OPs will hand over such facilities and the same will get operationalised. He fairly admits that as per Clause 10, the onus to form such apex body/ wing wise cooperative society is on the developers/promoters.
6. He raised issues with respect to the maintainability of the complaint, which was strongly objected to by the counsel for the complainant, who argued that this issue has already been considered at length by this Commission and decided vide this Commission's order dated 09.05.2025, vide which it has been held that the CC/150/2017 Page 6 of 10 Z The counsel for the complainant submitted that in the project as a whole there are 6 wings in total with about 999 units. However, the complainant's society represents only 222 unit holders. The counsel for the OPs submitted that some of the unit holders out of these 222 have already sold their units, details of which have been filed by them in September 2024 along with their written synopsis, and he contends that such persons should not be made entitled to delay compensation, having sold their units. On this issue, the counsel for both sides undertakes to verify the list of 69 members as filed and from their sides, to file supplementary notes of arguments on the issue of entitlement to delay compensation of such allottees who have sold their units within two weeks. The counsel for the OPs further states that not only some of the allottees have settled the matter with the OPs, hence they should not be entitled to any delay compensation.
8. After hearing both sides, judgment reserved. 11
8. The issue of maintainability was decided by this commission vide detailed order dated 09.05.2025 where complaint was held to be maintainable.
9. The OPs' objection based on the arbitration clause (Clause 54 of the Agreement) is also rejected. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs Anil Patni and Anr (2020)10 SCC 783 "Remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies under special statutes". In Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs Aftab Singh (2019) 1 CPJ 5 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Arbitration Clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora".
10. On the merits of the case, the inordinate delay in delivery of possession is undisputed. The promised possession dates were as early as 2011, yet Occupation Certificates were obtained only between 2017 and 2023, as detailed in the additional affidavit filed by the Complainant on 30.01.2024.
11. The OPs have sought to justify the delay by citing the change in policy to the Rental Housing Scheme, delays in government approvals, and shortage of construction materials. The plea of OP(s) that the delay was due to 'force majeure' circumstances is not valid as even after a gap of more than 6 years from the committed date given in the ABA, possession of flat has not been CC/150/2017 Page 7 of 10 given. There is no documentary evidence to support the contention of the opposite arties that the reasons pleaded by them, can be construed as 'Force Majeure'. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(2020) 16 SCC 512, "failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated period, amount to deficiency.
12. This Commission, in Vrajendra Jogjivandas Thakkar v. CCI Projects (P) Ltd.z CC No. 975 of 2016, held that a builder cannot hide behind genera! delays In approvals or the non-availability of materials, as it is their responsibility to procure necessary resources and approvals In a timely manner. The embargo on sand mining, for instance, does not absolve a builder of their obligation to procure sand from alternative sources.
13. In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghvan (2019) 5 SCC 725, Hon'ble Supreme court also observed that "a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the fiat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The incorporation of one sided clause in an agreement constitute an unfair trade practice as per section 29(r) of the Consumer protection act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling fiats by the builder. .........., the appellant-builder cannot seek to bind the respondent with such one sided contractual terms." In Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Anr. (2021) 3 SCC 241, Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Developer cannot compel apartment buyers to be bound by one sided contractual terms contained in apartment buyers agreement"
14. The offer of possession in 2017-2018 was accompanied by demands for signing Indemnity Bonds and Supplemental Agreements, which sought to waive claims for delay. Such coercive conditions are patently illegal and amount to an unfair trade practice.
15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the Consumer Complaint is partly allowed with the following directions:
CC/150/2017 Page 8 of 10(a) The Opposite Parties shall pay compensation for the delay in delivery of possession to the members of the Complainant Association in the form of simple interest © 6% per annum on the amounts paid by them to the OPs, from the respective promised dates of possession until the date of actual possession in each case. In case such possession was without a valid OC, the delay compensation shall be payable till the date of such OC.
(b) This order shall be applicable only to those members of the complainant association on whose behalf the complaint was filed; If any of these members have settled the matter with OPs prior to the date of this order, such allottees/Members of the association shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order. Allottees/ Members of Association, who after filing of the complaint have sold these units, but have not settled with the OPs, shall also be entitled to benefit of this order.
(c) If any allottee/Member of association who has sold his unit prior to the filing of the complaint by the association, shall not be entitled to benefit of this order. However, the subsequent purchasers of such units, if they are members of the association and complaint was filed on their behalf, and they have not settled the matter with the OPs, shall be entitled to benefit of the order. This is keeping in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd vs Charanjeet Singh(2021) SCC Online SC 479 that subsequent purchaser steps into the shoes of earlier allottees and inherits the rights and responsibilities/ liabilities of earlier allottees.
(d) OP shall also take requisite steps for registration of conveyance deed for the allottees/members of association to whom possession has already been given. Both sides are required to complete the required formalities in this regard within a maximum of two months.
(e) Further, if any of the promised amenities/facilities are still lacking the OPs shall ensure that such amenities are provided and pending works are completed before the conveyance deeds are registered.
(f) All amount under this order shall be paid by OP within a maximum of one month, Failing which total amount payable at the end of one month shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the expiry of one month till the date of actual payment.CC/150/2017 Page 9 of 10
•u
(g) The Opposite Parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant Association.
(h) The liability of the Opposite Parties shall be joint and several.
16. The pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(DR. INDERJIT SINGH)
PRESIDING MEMBER i
SdA
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
MEMBER
Shubhen'dra/Bench-3/AB
CC/150/2017 Page 10 of 10