Court rejects closure report, orders further probe into redevelopment dispute

The case stems from redevelopment arrangements dating back to 2005, when the society entered into agreements with Rustomjee for construction, sale of flats and utilisation of Floor Space Index (FSI), followed by subsequent supplementary agreements and transactions that later became the subject of allegations

MUMBAI: A magistrate’s court has rejected the B-summary closure report filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai police, seeking to close a long-drawn redevelopment dispute involving Vaidehi Akash Housing Society, Rustomjee Realty Pvt Ltd, and multiple flat purchasers. The court has directed the EOW to conduct further investigations into the matter.

Court rejects closure report, orders further probe into redevelopment dispute

The case stems from redevelopment arrangements dating back to 2005, when the society entered into agreements with Rustomjee for construction, sale of flats and utilisation of Floor Space Index (FSI), followed by subsequent supplementary agreements and transactions that later became the subject of allegations.

Additional chief metropolitan magistrate Abhijit Solapure at the Esplanade Court held that the EOW’s conclusion that the dispute was purely civil in nature could not be accepted, observing that “the entire pictures of dispute and alleged facts have not been unearthed”. He added that the court could only “cite lacuna in the summary… and direct the investigating machinery to further investigate the said aspect”.

The court noted that the informant, Gurunath Fondekar, and other society members had alleged losses exceeding ₹138 crore due to diversion of funds, misuse of FSI, and forged documents including commencement certificates and IODs, as well as transactions said to have caused wrongful gains of about ₹5.94 crore.

The order records that the dispute and the investigation spanned several rounds of inquiry before different officers of the EOW. It notes that an Investigating Officer (IO) in 2017 filed a report treating the matter as civil in nature. The case was later examined by other officers, including Balasaheb Kakad, who submitted a further report.

Subsequently, another IO, Prakash Baglan, conducted a separate analysis, followed by a detailed report by assistant police inspector Pandurang Sanase. After reviewing the sequence of reports, the magistrate observed that “all these reports are inconsistent and contrary to some extent.”

The victims, represented by advocate MB Shirsat, had repeatedly objected to the B-summary closure report and pointed to alleged irregularities in development rights, FSI utilisation, sale of flats, and area calculations. The magistrate also took note of earlier Bombay High Court directions requiring the investigating agency to consider rival contentions in parallel, and observed that this had not been adequately complied with.

Finding significant deficiencies in the investigation and unresolved issues in the material placed before the court, the magistrate rejected the B-summary report and directed the EOW to conduct further investigations, ordering that all original documents be returned to the IO to facilitate continued inquiry.