...
...
Next Story

Chandigarh: Realty firm’s MD to undergo 2-yr jail over failure to refund homebuyers

The commission, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and member Preetinder Singh, also imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on Gurpreet Singh Sidhu

Published on: Apr 25, 2026, 07:38:10 IST
By , Chandigarh
Prefer HTon Google
Advertisement

The state consumer disputes redressal commission has sentenced Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, managing director of Emerging India Housing Corporation Private Limited., to two years imprisonment in a consumer dispute case for failing to comply with a refund order passed in favour of homebuyers.

The panel convicted him under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the commission’s directions. (HT File)
The panel convicted him under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the commission’s directions. (HT File)

The commission, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and member Preetinder Singh, also imposed a fine of 2,000 on Sidhu. In default of payment of the fine, he will undergo an additional one month of simple imprisonment.

According to the order, complainants Roshan Kumar and Pooja Garg had booked a flat in the builder’s project and paid 18.86 lakh between 2011 and 2013. However, possession of the flat was not handed over and the amount was also not refunded.

In January 2018, the consumer commission had directed the builder and its officials to refund 18.86 lakh with 12% annual interest, pay 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and 33,000 as litigation costs. The order stated that failure to make payment within two months would attract penal interest.

During the proceedings, the accused paid amount on different dates totalling 28.70 lakh. However, after examining the calculations, the commission held that 31.28 lakh was still due as of March 12, 2026.

Sidhu told the commission that he was facing financial difficulties and had already paid substantial amounts. The commission, however, observed that the order had remained uncomplied with for more than eight years despite repeated opportunities.

The commission held that the accused had “consciously and deliberately failed to honour the binding order and convicted him under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the commission’s directions.

 
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Hindustantimes wants to start sending you push notifications. Click allow to subscribe