MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a 2016 money laundering case against D B Realty Ltd and its managing director, Vinodkumar Goenka. This case was associated with former Maharashtra deputy chief minister Chhagan Bhujbal and the Maharashtra Sadan construction controversy.
A single-judge bench led by Justice Ashwin Bhobe, in a July 21 ruling, annulled the 2019 order from a special court that had rejected the discharge petitions of Goenka and D B Realty. They were implicated in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) set in motion against Bhujbal and others in 2016.
For Goenka and D B Realty, senior lawyers Vikram Nankani, Aabad Ponda, Parimal Shroff, and Sajal Yadav contended that Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd and Bhujbal had already been exonerated in the matter. The special trial court had previously determined that the transactions “do not constitute proceeds of crime,” leading to the conclusion that no charges remain against Goenka and D B Realty—an argument accepted by Justice Bhobe.
The High Court was informed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had not contested the discharge orders. While the ED did not appeal Bhujbal’s discharge, activist Anjali Damania has challenged it in the HC, where the case is currently pending.
The investigation originated from a public interest litigation initiated by BJP’s Kirit Somaiya in 2012 and the Aam Aadmi Party in 2014 against Bhujbal and others, alleging corruption and illicit dealings in public contracts.
In 2015, three FIRs were filed against Bhujbal and his associates, but none targeted Goenka or D B Realty. Notably, the HC observed that the ED’s claims centered on the notion that Goenka and D B Realty knowingly engaged in a deceptive real estate transaction involving funds generated by Bhujbal.
The ED claimed that Lalit Tekchandani had proposed a 50% partnership in a planned 25-acre development project involving Sameer Bhujbal (Bhujbal’s nephew). Under this arrangement, D B Realty paid Rs 5 crore to Parvesh Construction as an advance for land acquisition. Although this amount was later refunded, the ED argued that the transaction was meant to obscure and misdirect tainted funds, thereby presenting them as legitimate. However, the HC found merit in Nankani’s arguments, ruling that the discharge order was conclusive, and consequently quashed the ED’s case against Goenka and D B Realty as the allegations pertained to transactions with Parvesh Construction.
