The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) leader L.K. Sudhish and his wife S. Poornajothi to relieve them from the liability of refunding ₹98.27 lakh, along with 9% interest from 2024, to an elderly widow who had booked a flat in a high-rise residential complex ‘M One’, constructed by Lokaa Developers at Madhavaram in Chennai, but was never given possession.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the case with liberty to the couple to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, for challenging the order passed against them by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) on March 28, 2025.

The petitioner couple had approached the High Court claiming that the SCDRC ought to have directed only Santhosh Sharma and Lalith Kumar, promoters of Lokaa Developers, to refund the money to the widow and not the petitioners, who were only the owners of 2.10 acres on which the high rise was constructed on the basis of a joint development agreement between them and the real estate developer.

However, the Chief Justice’s Bench observed that the petitioners ought to have approached the NCDRC and not the High Court by invoking its writ petition. When the petitioners’ counsel claimed that his clients would have to make a pre-deposit for approaching the NCRDC despite them not being liable to pay any money, the first Bench said, such a claim “is not supported by any provisions contained in Section 58 of the Act.”

In his order, SCDRC president R. Subbiah, a retired judge of the Madras High Court, had pointed out that C.D. Padmanabhan, a retired Director of Indian Meteorological Department, had booked one of the 234 flats proposed at ‘M One’ in 2019. The flat was booked along with his wife P. Pushpavathi by using the emoluments he had received at the time of his retirement from government service in 2003.

The aged couple had paid a total consideration of nearly ₹1 crore on the promise that the possession of the flat would be handed over to them within 18 months from June 14, 2019. However, the promise was not kept until 2024 when they approached the SCDRC alleging deficiency of service, and also after learning that the property was a Nanja (wet) land which ought not to have been used for real estate purposes.

Though the SCDRC had ordered notices to Mr. Sudhish, Ms. Poornajothi, Mr. Sharma, and Mr. Kumar following the complaint lodged against them by the aged couple, none of them chose to appear before the commission. Therefore, the president had passed an ex-parte order in March 2025 directing the opposite parties to refund ₹98.27 lakh along with interest at the rate of 9%.

On receipt of the refund, the aged couple were directed to reconvey their undivided share of 308.75 sq. ft. to Mr. Sudhish and his wife. However, by the time, the politician and his wife filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the SCRDC’s order, Padmanabhan died, leaving behind his wife as his legal heir.