The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) leader L.K. Sudhish and his wife, S. Poornajothi. They had sought to be absolved from the responsibility of repaying ₹98.27 lakh, plus 9% interest from 2024, to an elderly widow. This sum was paid by the widow for a flat in the ‘M One’ high-rise residential complex, developed by Lokaa Developers in Madhavaram, Chennai, which was never handed over.
A First Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, threw out the case. However, they granted the couple the option to appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, to challenge the original order issued by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) on March 28, 2025.
The couple had approached the High Court arguing that the SCDRC should have directed only Santhosh Sharma and Lalith Kumar, the promoters of Lokaa Developers, to refund the money. They contended that they were merely the owners of the 2.10 acres of land where the high-rise was built, under a joint development agreement with the real estate developer, and therefore not personally liable.
However, the Chief Justice’s Bench highlighted that the petitioners should have directed their appeal to the NCDRC, rather than filing a writ petition with the High Court. When the couple’s counsel argued that a pre-deposit would be required for the NCDRC appeal, despite their clients claiming no liability, the Bench clarified that such a claim finds no support in the provisions of Section 58 of the Act.
In his initial order, SCDRC president R. Subbiah, a retired Madras High Court judge, detailed that C.D. Padmanabhan, a former Director of the Indian Meteorological Department, had booked one of the 234 proposed flats at ‘M One’ in 2019. He and his wife, P. Pushpavathi, used his retirement funds from 2003 for this investment.
The elderly couple had paid nearly ₹1 crore, with the understanding that possession of the flat would be given within 18 months from June 14, 2019. This promise was broken, leading them to approach the SCDRC in 2024, citing a deficiency of service. They also discovered that the property was originally Nanja (wet) land, which should not have been used for real estate development.
Despite the SCDRC issuing notices to Mr. Sudhish, Ms. Poornajothi, Mr. Sharma, and Mr. Kumar regarding the complaint, none appeared before the commission. Consequently, the president issued an ex-parte order in March 2025, mandating all opposing parties to refund ₹98.27 lakh, along with 9% interest.
Upon receiving the refund, the aged couple was directed to reconvey their undivided share of 308.75 sq. ft. to Mr. Sudhish and his wife. Tragically, by the time the politician and his wife filed their High Court petition against the SCDRC’s order, Mr. Padmanabhan had passed away, leaving his wife as the sole legal heir in this ongoing dispute.