In re: Compensation for cancelled housing scheme advertisement — Allahabad High Court

Timeline

1. 26 Oct 2026Judgment

   Allahabad High Court directs HPCL to reimburse ₹15.78 lakh to applicant

   In the case of Shantanu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court ordered Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) to compensate an applicant for investments totaling ₹15.78 lakh. The court ruled the reimbursement was necessary because the company withdrew the advertisement for a retail-outlet site due to its own error regarding jurisdictional purview after a Letter of Intent had been issued.

   Verdictum

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The court ordered a company to pay back money to a man for a cancelled business project.

   Who:

   Shantanu Singh is the applicant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is the company, and the Allahabad High Court is the judge.

   When:

   Reported on 26 Oct 2026.

   Where:

   Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh.

   Why:

   The company made a mistake about its legal authority to offer the site and cancelled the project.

   What it means:

   The company must now return the money to the applicant.

2. 24 Oct 2026News

   Allottee Must Be Compensated For Investment If Advertisement Is Withdrawn Due To Authority's Own Fault: Allahabad High Court

   The Allahabad High Court has held that where an advertisement is cancelled after a Letter of Intent has been issued, and the cancellation is the authority

   LiveLaw

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The court ruled that an authority must pay back money to people if it cancels a housing project.

   Who:

   The Allahabad High Court is the court, the housing authority is the agency, and an allottee is the person who bought into the scheme.

   When:

   Reported on 24 Oct 2026.

   Where:

   Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh.

   Why:

   The court decided this because the cancellation happened due to the authority's own mistake after promising the property.

   What it means:

   The ruling confirms that the agency must compensate buyers when it is at fault for cancelling an advertisement.