November 26, 2025: A magistrate’s court has dismissed the B-summary closure report submitted by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police in a long-running redevelopment dispute involving Vaidehi Akash Housing Society, Rustomjee Realty Pvt Ltd, and several flat purchasers. The court has instead instructed the EOW to carry out further investigation, marking a significant turn in a controversy dating back nearly two decades.
The case arises from redevelopment agreements initiated in 2005, when the society partnered with Rustomjee for construction, sale of flats, and utilisation of Floor Space Index (FSI). Over the years, multiple supplementary agreements and transactions were executed, eventually leading to allegations of financial misconduct, illegal FSI use, and forged documents.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Abhijit Solapure of the Esplanade Court ruled that the EOW’s conclusion treating the matter as purely civil could not be accepted. He stated that “the entire picture of dispute and alleged facts have not been unearthed,” and added that the court could only “cite lacuna in the summary… and direct the investigating machinery to further investigate the said aspect.”
According to the order, informant Gurunath Fondekar and other society members claimed losses over ₹138 crore stemming from alleged fund diversion, misuse of FSI, and forged documents such as commencement certificates and IODs. They also flagged transactions that purportedly resulted in wrongful gains of around ₹5.94 crore. The matter has undergone multiple rounds of scrutiny by different EOW officers, beginning with a 2017 report that classified the dispute as civil. Subsequent assessments by officers, including Balasaheb Kakad, Prakash Baglan, and assistant police inspector Pandurang Sanase, produced conflicting findings.
The victims, represented by advocate MB Shirsat, consistently opposed the B-summary report, pointing to irregularities in development rights and area calculations. The magistrate also noted that earlier Bombay High Court directions—requiring investigators to consider rival claims simultaneously—were not adequately followed. Citing inconsistencies and significant gaps, the court rejected the closure report and ordered the EOW to resume investigation, directing that all original documents be handed back to the Investigating Officer.
