The judgment, pronounced on 8 May 2026 by a bench of Chairperson Shri S.S. Shinde (J) and Member (A) Shrikant M. Deshpande, is a textbook case of a promoter attempting to weaponize a homebuyer’s delayed payments — payments the promoter was legally barred from even demanding in the first place.

The core finding

A promoter who collects over 90% of the sale price without executing a registered Agreement for Sale — violating both MOFA and RERA — cannot then cancel the allotment on the grounds of “non-payment.” The wrongdoer cannot profit from their own wrong.

The Homebuyer’s Story

Pramod Yagnarayan Singh booked flat No. A-2, 302 in Hatkesh Heights — a 408.40 sq. ft. carpet area apartment on the 3rd floor — in December 2014. The total sale price was ₹35,05,000. Over the next four years, Singh faithfully responded to every demand letter sent by the promoter, paying a total of ₹28,63,375 — more than 81% of the agreed price — along with service tax, bringing his total outgo to approximately ₹29 lakh.

Through all these years, the promoter sent over 20 demand letters asking for payments. What the promoter did not do — not once — was share a draft Agreement for Sale, communicate a date for its execution, or inform the buyer of applicable stamp duty and registration charges. Under both the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), a promoter is legally prohibited from accepting more than 10–20% of the consideration price without first executing and registering an Agreement for Sale.

Then, on 12 February 2019, came the letter that shocked Singh: the promoter cancelled his flat, citing “outstanding dues” and inviting him to collect a refund after deducting “interest till date.”

Singh’s advocate responded swiftly on 11 March 2019, reminding the builder of its statutory obligations, enclosing cheques for the entire outstanding balance — ₹6,06,575 towards consideration and ₹1,44,789 towards GST. The promoter never replied. The cheques were never deposited.

“A wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.”
— Supreme Court, cited in the order

A Decade-Long Legal Battle

• 2014Allotment letter issued; Singh begins paying instalments against builder’s demand notices.
• 2015–18Over 20 demand letters sent by builder. No draft Agreement for Sale ever shared. Builder keeps collecting money.
• Feb 2019Builder cancels the allotment for “non-payment.” Singh sends balance cheques by letter — ignored by builder.
• Jul 2019Singh files complaint before MahaRERA. Occupation Certificate for the project is issued in May 2019.
• Nov 2019MahaRERA directs builder to execute Agreement for Sale. Builder appeals to MREAT.
• Dec 2021MREAT remands the matter back, noting the cancellation letter was never addressed.
• Jun 2022MahaRERA sets aside cancellation, again directs Agreement for Sale execution. Builder files this appeal.
• May 2026MREAT dismisses builder’s appeal; delivers sweeping relief to Singh including possession and interest.

What the Tribunal Found

The Tribunal was categorical: the promoter violated Section 4 of MOFA and Section 13 of RERA by accepting over 90% of the consideration amount without executing a registered Agreement for Sale. These are not technical violations — they are the foundational consumer protections at the heart of real estate law.

The promoter’s argument that it sent 20 letters asking Singh to come and register the agreement was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the letters were merely demand notices for more money, with a one-liner stating the agreement was “ready for stamp duty.” No draft agreement was ever shared. No registration date was ever communicated. No stamp duty amount was ever specified. On direct query from the bench, the promoter’s advocate confirmed that no such communication existed.

The Tribunal also invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Amit Arya v. Kamleh Kumari (2025) to hold that Singh’s conduct — sending the balance cheques, writing formally to the builder, demanding possession — demonstrated clear readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Non-payment of balance consideration within a time period does not amount to abandonment of contract; the real test is whether there was a “positive refusal” to perform. There was none from Singh.

Crucially, the Tribunal applied the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrongdoing — citing the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar. The promoter who was legally barred from demanding further payments without first executing the Agreement for Sale cannot then cancel the allotment on the very ground of non-payment of those illegal demands.

Going Beyond — The Tribunal Steps In

In a noteworthy exercise of its appellate powers, the Tribunal observed that the original MahaRERA order had failed to address two key prayers by Singh: direction for possession and interest for delayed possession. Rather than remanding the case yet again — forcing the parties into another round of litigation after more than a decade — the Tribunal decided to adjudicate these issues itself, invoking Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its own inherent powers under MREAT Regulations 2019.

The Tribunal calculated the deemed date of possession as 31 December 2017 — three years from the allotment letter, following the Supreme Court’s formula in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018) for cases where no possession date is specified. The occupation certificate was obtained by the promoter only in May 2019 — already over a year late. And Singh has been out of possession for over seven years since.

The Final Order: Builder Punished on Every Count

Tribunal’s directions — Appeal No. AT006000000113946 of 2022

1 Execute and register the Agreement for Sale in terms of the allotment letter (with deemed possession date of 31.12.2017) within 30 days.

2 Hand over possession of the flat within 30 days of receiving the balance consideration of ₹6,41,625 with applicable taxes — without charging any interest on delayed payment from the buyer.

3 Execute the Sale Deed within 30 days of balance payment, at the cost of the promoter.

4 Pay interest on ₹28,63,375 (amount already paid by Singh) from 1 January 2018 until the date of actual possession — under Section 18 of RERA.

5 Pay litigation costs of ₹2,00,000 to the allottee.

Why This Ruling Matters

This judgment is significant for several reasons. First, it reaffirms that the RERA Act is retroactive — protecting homebuyers even in projects that began before RERA came into force in 2016, as long as they were ongoing and lacked a completion certificate. Second, it establishes that a builder who systematically collects money without fulfilling the mandatory Agreement for Sale obligation is in no position to invoke equity or claim non-payment by the buyer. Third, the Tribunal’s willingness to adjudicate possession and interest at the appellate stage — rather than remanding — offers a model for resolving long-pending disputes without further delay.

For tens of thousands of homebuyers across Maharashtra who find themselves in similar situations — paying crores to builders who evade formal agreements and then attempt cancellations — this order sends a clear message: the law is on your side.

Also Read: Builder Sold Flat… Then Mortgaged It! MahaRERA Tribunal; Says Builder Must Clear Mortgage, Give Possession & Pay Interest

The post Builder Pockets 90% of Your Money,Then Cancels Your Flat — Tribunal Says: Not on Our Watch appeared first on Square Feat India.

The MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande, in a detailed order dated 23 April 2026 (Complaint No. CC006000000078246), has pulled up Noble Infra Projects and directed it to deliver legal possession of Flat No. 1202 in “Noble Heights”, Malad (East), to the rightful allottee along with heavy interest running from January 2018.

How the Dispute Began

Shakir Shafiyddin Shaikh, the complainant, had worked as a labour and construction contractor for the builder’s SRA redevelopment project in Malad between 2015 and 2017. When the builder failed to clear his dues of around ₹1.22 crore, the parties reached a settlement in late 2017.

In lieu of cash payment, the builder executed a registered Agreement for Sale on 22 November 2017, allotting Flat No. 1202 (460 sq.ft. carpet area, 12th floor) to Shaikh for ₹55 lakh, with the amount adjusted against the outstanding contractor dues. The agreement promised possession by 31 December 2017.

Years passed with no possession and no Occupation Certificate (OC). Shaikh filed a complaint with MahaRERA in 2019. While the case was pending, the builder quietly handed over the same flat to a third party, who began occupying it. Electricity consumption records submitted in the case proved actual usage by someone else.

Builder’s Defence Crumbles

The developer claimed the Agreement for Sale was forged by a rogue employee in collusion with Shaikh. MahaRERA rejected this defence, observing:

• The builder had earlier admitted the execution of the agreement in multiple proceedings (including Section 138 NI Act cases and appeals), describing it only as signed “under duress”.
• The fraud and forgery allegations surfaced only in 2023–2024 — nearly six years later — indicating they were an afterthought.
• A registered document carries a strong presumption of validity unless set aside by a competent civil court.

The Authority ruled that Shakir Shaikh is a valid “Allottee” under Section 2(d) of RERA. Adjustment of dues against the flat price was accepted as valid consideration.

Key Directions in the Judgment

• The builder must hand over legal possession of Flat No. 1202 with Occupation Certificate to the complainant within 60 days.
• Pay interest under Section 18 of RERA on the full ₹55 lakh from 1 January 2018 till the date of actual possession (at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%).
• Pay ₹20,000 towards the complainant’s litigation costs.

No separate compensation for mental agony was awarded, as the statutory interest itself is compensatory in nature.

Why This Order Matters

This judgment highlights a serious malpractice in the real estate sector — builders creating third-party interests in already-sold units while litigation is pending. MahaRERA made it clear that such actions cannot defeat the rights of a registered allottee. The order also reaffirms RERA’s jurisdiction over delay-in-possession matters, even when parallel civil/criminal proceedings alleging fraud are ongoing.

The builder now faces the uphill task of removing the third-party occupant, obtaining the OC, and paying a massive accumulated interest bill that has been running for more than eight years.

This case serves as a strong warning to developers: registered agreements and RERA proceedings cannot be bypassed through backdoor dealings.

Also Read: Builder Couldn’t Pay ₹2,000 Cost, MahaRERA Orders ₹25 Lakh+ Refund to Homebuyer

The post Builder Hands Flat To Third Party, While Homebuyer Was Busy Fighting MahaRERA Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

Case Details:

• Appeal No.: AT006000000053767 of 2022
• Original Complaint No.: CC006000000078636
• Appellant (Homebuyer): Suchitra Sudam Patil, resident of Block No. 305, Manogat Apartment, Kharegaon, Pakhadi, Kalwa, Thane-400605
• Respondent (Promoter/Builder): Kailash Chattrapati Patil, Shop No.4, Sun Flower Tower, Old Police Line, Parvati Bhavan, Creek Road, Kharkar Ali, Thane (West)
• Project: “Kailash Heights” (RERA Registration No. P51700006977)
• Tribunal Members: Coram – Shri S.S. Shinde (J), Chairperson & Shri Shrikant M. Deshpande, Member (A)
• Reserved on: 13th February 2026
• Pronounced on: 23rd February 2026 (via Video Conferencing)

Chronological Timeline of Events:

1. 2011 – Booking and Agreement: In 2011, Suchitra Sudam Patil booked Flat No. 602 on the 6th floor of “Kailash Heights”. On 19 June 2011, she executed an Agreement for Sale with the promoter for a total consideration of ₹35,79,000. She paid ₹12,00,000 (over 33% of the price) as part consideration. Additionally, she paid ₹2,17,000 to the promoter towards stamp duty (₹1,70,000), registration charges (₹38,000), scanning charges (₹2,000), registration agent fees (₹5,000), and a later ₹10,000 instalment – all specifically for registering the agreement.
2. Promised Possession Date: The agreement clearly stated possession within 18 months from the date of agreement, i.e., on or before January 2013.
3. Builder’s Delay in Registration (2011–2013): Under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) Section 4 (and later RERA Section 13), the promoter was obligated to register the agreement after accepting more than 20% (pre-RERA) or 10% (post-RERA) of the consideration. Despite receiving full stamp duty and registration funds from the buyer in 2011, the promoter deposited only ₹1,79,000 towards stamp duty as late as 28 December 2012 – nearly a year late. This caused the original registration challan to expire on 17 April 2013. Meanwhile, government stamp duty rates increased. The promoter then demanded additional stamp duty (around ₹1,00,300 in 2013, later ₹1,00,200 + ₹35,200 penalty in 2017) from the buyer, blaming her for non-cooperation.
4. Further Delays and Builder’s Demands (2013–2016): Fresh adjudication was filed in February 2016, but the promoter again failed to pay the deficit amounts. The buyer demonstrated willingness by paying an additional ₹5,00,000 instalment on demand, but the promoter refused to encash the cheque, citing non-payment of interest. The promoter never completed registration.
5. Illegal Termination (2016): On 4 August 2016, the promoter issued a termination letter, claiming the buyer failed to register the agreement and come forward for further payments.
6. Buyer’s Complaint to MahaRERA (2019): In April 2019, the buyer filed Complaint No. CC006000000078636 seeking registration of the agreement, possession, interest under Section 18 of RERA for delay, and compensation.
7. MahaRERA Order (4 April 2022): The Authority dismissed the complaint, holding that without a registered agreement, there was no clear possession date, and parties were bound by original terms for refund. It noted the 2016 termination was unchallenged.
8. Appeal to MahaREAT (2022): Aggrieved, the buyer appealed. The promoter did not appear for oral arguments but filed replies claiming the buyer caused delays and the allotment stood terminated.
9. Tribunal’s Landmark Judgement (23 February 2026): The Appellate Tribunal set aside the MahaRERA order completely. Key holdings:
   • The 2011 Agreement for Sale is valid and binding even unregistered, as non-registration was solely the promoter’s fault (he who prevents a thing from being done cannot benefit from it – citing Supreme Court precedents).
   • RERA applies retroactively to ongoing projects (relying on Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters case, 2021).
   • Promoter violated MOFA Section 4 and RERA Section 13 by not registering despite receiving >30% payment.
   • The 2016 termination is unlawful and set aside – not binding on the buyer.
   • Buyer showed full willingness; extra stamp duty/penalty burden falls on promoter due to his delay.
   • Delay in possession starts from February 2013 (no force majeure proved).
   • Buyer entitled to unconditional interest under RERA Section 18 (citing Bombay High Court in Bombay Dyeing and Neelkamal Realtors cases – even unregistered agreements qualify if terms are clear).

Final Relief Granted to Homebuyer:

• Promoter must register the 19 June 2011 Agreement for Sale within 30 days, at his own cost, without altering terms.
• Pay interest on ₹12,00,000 from 1 February 2013 till realization at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% (currently 8.70% MCLR for 1-year tenor as of February 2026, so ~10.70% p.a.) – within 30 days, failing which interest continues.
• Complete construction, obtain Occupancy Certificate, and hand over possession of Flat No. 602, subject to buyer paying any genuine balance per the 2011 agreement.
• No third-party rights or encumbrances allowed on the flat.
• Miscellaneous applications disposed of; parties bear own costs.

This ruling is a powerful reminder for homebuyers: Builders cannot exploit procedural lapses they caused themselves. Even pre-RERA deals from 2011 can get full RERA protection if the project was ongoing. Homebuyers facing similar issues should document payments and willingness meticulously – it can turn the tables in appeals.

Also Read: Mumbai Housing Market Slipping: Registration Fall, Rs 1 Cr Homes Disappearing From Market

The post Builder’s Fraud Backfires: Tried to Cancel Flat After Delaying Registration – Homebuyer Wins Big in Tribunal appeared first on Square Feat India.

The attachment was carried out on December 17, 2025, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, by the ED’s Gurugram Zonal Office.

Funds Diverted Instead of Project Completion

According to the ED, the attached assets include properties belonging not only to Ramprastha Group, but also to Vatika Group, Unitech Group and other entities, to whom the homebuyers’ funds were allegedly diverted. The money, instead of being utilised for construction and delivery of homes, was siphoned off under the guise of loans, advances and land transactions.

The investigation was initiated based on multiple FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), New Delhi and Haryana Police, which alleged large-scale cheating and fraud of flat buyers and plot buyers.

Projects Launched, Possession Delayed by Over a Decade

ED investigation revealed that RPDPL had launched several residential projects between 2008 and 2011, including:

• Project Edge
• Project Skyz
• Project Rise
• Ramprastha City (plotted colony)

These projects are located in Sectors 37D, 92, 93 and 95 of Gurugram. While possession was promised within 3 to 4 years, buyers are still waiting even after 10 to 14 years, the agency said.

₹1,100 Crore Collected from Homebuyers

The ED stated that RPDPL collected approximately ₹1,100 crore from more than 2,600 homebuyers, but the funds were systematically diverted to group and non-group companies rather than being used for project execution.

Directors Arrested, Total Attachments Cross ₹866 Crore

Earlier in the case, the ED arrested Arvind Walia and Sandeep Yadav, Directors and majority shareholders of RPDPL, on July 21, 2025. Both are currently in judicial custody.

The agency has also conducted extensive search and seizure operations, leading to two earlier Provisional Attachment Orders covering bank balances, movable assets and immovable properties of RPDPL, its group companies and directors. Prior to the latest attachment, assets worth approximately ₹786 crore had already been attached or seized.

With the current attachment of ₹80.03 crore, the total value of assets attached/seized in the case now stands at approximately ₹866 crore, the ED said.

The investigation is ongoing.

Also Read: ED Attaches Assets Worth ₹307 Crore Linked to Illegal Betting App ‘Fairplay’

The post 2,600 Homebuyers Cheated of ₹1,100 Crore by Builder, ED Attaches Assets Worth ₹80 Crore appeared first on Square Feat India.

The 1980s Sale That Never Gave Ownership

In the early 1980s, 170 families bought flats in two buildings – Harshad Building B and Harshad Building C – on a prime plot off the Eastern Express Highway. The landowner, Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association Ltd. (a company limited by guarantee), and its appointed developer sold the flats through regular agreements that explicitly stated: “This transaction is governed by the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA)”.

Yet, every agreement also labelled the buyer a “Special Patron Member” of the landowner company – a meaningless title that gave residents no voting rights, no say in management, and no real membership. The fine print made it clear: the land would never be transferred.

The Vanishing Act

Once possession was handed over and full payment collected, both the landowner company and the developer walked away.

• No co-operative society was formed by the promoter (mandatory under MOFA).
• No conveyance deed was executed (mandatory within 4 months of occupation).
• Property tax, maintenance, repairs – everything was left to the residents.

For the next 35+ years, the original landowner paid nothing, maintained nothing, and never even visited the property.

Residents Take Charge

In 2002, fed up with waiting, the flat owners formed their own co-operative society – Harshad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The landowner knew about the registration immediately but never legally challenged it. From that day onward, the society single-handedly ran the buildings: paid municipal taxes, carried out major repairs, installed lifts, and managed day-to-day affairs.

2013: Deemed Conveyance Victory

Eleven years after forming the society, the members applied for “deemed conveyance” under Section 11 of MOFA. Notice was sent to the landowner’s registered office (still shown as Girgaum in official MCA records). The company did not appear. On 9 October 2013, the District Deputy Registrar granted deemed conveyance for the entire land beneath Buildings B and C (2,989 sq.m.).

The 40-Year Sleep Ends – Landowner Wakes Up

Only after losing the land on paper did Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association suddenly file a writ petition in 2014 claiming:

• “The buyers are our members, so MOFA doesn’t apply.”
• “ULC exemption order permanently bars conveyance.”
• “Notice was sent to the wrong address.”

The case dragged on for another 11 years.

2025: The Final Hammer

On 9 December 2025, Justice Amit Borkar rejected every argument:

• The “Special Patron Member” label was declared a deliberate fraud on the statute.
• Service at the registered office was perfect; the company itself never updated its address.
• Even the surviving ULC exemption order does not treat genuine flat buyers as “outsiders”.
• 40 years of total abandonment and zero responsibility weighed heavily against the landowner.

The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The deemed conveyance stands confirmed. The residents are now the undisputed legal owners.

One resident, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “We paid for our homes in the 1980s. We maintained them for four decades. Today, after 40 years, we finally have the paper that says this is truly ours.”

For thousands of housing societies still fighting similar battles, Monday’s judgment has become the gold standard: no builder or landowner can sleep on their rights for 40 years and then wake up to reclaim the land.

Also Read: Lodha Brothers Resolve Disputes, Clarify Brand Ownership

The post Builder Sold Flats, Disappeared for 40 Years – Bombay High Court Finally Gives Ownership to Residents appeared first on Square Feat India.

This is why the case is newsworthy now—the appellate ruling finally confirms that the original 2024 MahaRERA order must be complied with, closing all escape routes for the builder.

The original order was passed in November 2024 by the then MahaRERA Chairman.

What Exactly Happened? Builder Sold the Flat… Then Mortgaged It!

The facts of the case are disturbing — and a cautionary tale for every homebuyer.

February 11, 2019

Homebuyer Faisal Sabir Rashid purchased flats in the Lokhandwala Infrastructure Project and executed a registered Agreement for Sale with Lokhandwala Kataria Construction.

March 15, 2019

Barely a month later, the builder illegally mortgaged the same flats to IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., despite already selling them.

This violates Section 11(4)(h) of RERA, which clearly prohibits mortgaging or creating any charge on a flat after a registered agreement with a homebuyer has been executed.

But Lokhandwala did it anyway.

Homebuyer Approaches MahaRERA

Faisal Rashid approached MahaRERA seeking:

• Removal of the illegal mortgage,
• Possession with Occupation Certificate (OC),
• Interest for delayed possession,
• Declarations of RERA violation.

What the 2024 MahaRERA Order Held

The then MahaRERA Chairman ruled strongly in favour of the homebuyer:

1⃣ Mortgage Created After Sale Is Invalid

Any mortgage made after the registered sale agreement is meaningless in the eyes of law.

The burden falls on the builder — not on the homebuyer — to clear this mortgage.

2⃣ Builder Must First Remove the Mortgage

MahaRERA held that the developer must:

• Clear the loan/charge with IDBI Trusteeship
• Ensure the flat becomes encumbrance-free

Only then can possession be offered.

3⃣ Possession Must Come WITH a Valid OC

No partial, provisional or “fit-out” possession is acceptable.

Only OC-backed legal possession is considered possession.

4⃣ Delay Interest Payable Until Actual, Legal Possession

Delay interest continues until:

• Mortgages are cleared
• OC is issued
• The flat is delivered in compliance with RERA

This makes it financially painful for the builder to delay.

Builder’s Appeal Rejected (December 3, 2025)

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction tried to overturn the order in MahaREAT.

However, on 3 December 2025, the Appellate Tribunal:

• Upheld MahaRERA’s findings
• Refused to interfere with the original order
• Confirmed that homebuyers cannot be forced to accept mortgaged properties

This makes the 2024 order final and enforceable.

Important Statement From MahaRERA (Clarification of Powers)

In the original order, the then Chairman clarified:

MahaRERA cannot order eviction or recovery of premises

These are civil court issues.

But MahaRERA can enforce RERA obligations

Including:

• Handing over lawful possession
• Removing mortgages
• Paying delay interest
• Complying with OC requirements

This ensures homebuyers are not left helpless, even when a builder behaves fraudulently.

Why This Judgment Matters (Impact)

For Homebuyers

• If a builder mortgages your flat after selling it — it is illegal.
• You cannot be forced to deal with banks or trusteeship companies.
• You must receive an encumbrance-free flat.
• You are legally entitled to delay interest.

For Builders

This case delivers a loud message:

• You cannot use sold flats as collateral.
• Appeals won’t protect you from illegal acts.
• You must provide OC + clear title + timely possession.

For the Real Estate Sector

This ruling strengthens:

• Transparency
• Buyer confidence
• Accountability

Developers will now be wary of mortgaging already-sold units.

Conclusion

This case is a landmark victory for homebuyers, proving that:

• The law protects buyers
• Illegal builder practices will not stand
• RERA and MahaREAT are ready to act decisively

Lokhandwala’s attempt to mortgage a sold flat after taking money has now been shut down firmly — ensuring justice for the buyer and setting a powerful precedent for the entire real estate industry.

Also Read: MahaRERA Rejects Arbitration Clauses in Real Estate Disputes, Upholds Homebuyer Rights

The post ⚡ Builder Sold Flat… Then Mortgaged It! MahaRERA Tribunal; Says Builder Must Clear Mortgage, Give Possession & Pay Interest appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Property at the Centre: DAKC, Navi Mumbai

Spread across 132 acres, DAKC was envisioned as a futuristic corporate campus for Reliance Communications, named after the late Dhirubhai Ambani. Located strategically near Kopar Khairane in Navi Mumbai, the campus once housed thousands of employees and cutting-edge telecom infrastructure.
Now, this vast real estate asset — once seen as the crown jewel of Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group — stands at the heart of one of India’s largest bank fraud probes.

The Case: From Loans to Alleged Diversion

According to the ED, the attachment follows an ongoing investigation into loans worth ₹40,185 crore, taken by Reliance Communications Ltd. (RCOM) and its group entities between 2010 and 2012.
Five banks have already declared these accounts as “fraud.”
Investigators allege that funds borrowed from one lender were misused to repay loans of other group firms, transferred to related parties, or parked in mutual funds and fixed deposits — in violation of lending terms.

The ED claims to have uncovered:

• Over ₹13,600 crore diverted for evergreening loans (repaying old debts with new ones)
• Around ₹12,600 crore routed to connected entities
• Approximately ₹1,800 crore invested in fixed deposits and mutual funds that were later liquidated and rerouted within the group

The probe also found instances of funds being siphoned abroad through foreign outward remittances, and misuse of bill discounting facilities to funnel money to related parties.

What the Attachment Means

The ED’s attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, effectively bars sale or transfer of the DAKC land pending further legal proceedings. It is part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to recover assets classified as “proceeds of crime” in the RCom bank fraud case.

Earlier, the ED had attached 42 properties worth ₹3,083 crore linked to Reliance Communications, Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd., and Reliance Home Finance Ltd.

With this latest move, the cumulative attachment value has crossed ₹7,545 crore.

The Bigger Picture

Once home to India’s telecom ambitions, DAKC now reflects the collapse of a business empire and the tightening grip of financial enforcement. The ED’s statement emphasizes its commitment to “restituting proceeds of crime to their rightful claimants.”

Further investigation is underway, and proceedings before the adjudicating authority under PMLA will determine the next steps for the attached properties.

Also Read: New Government Mandate: No more middlemen for rent agreements!

The post ED Attaches Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Land Worth ₹4,462 Crore in RCom Bank Fraud Case appeared first on Square Feat India.