SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Mumbai EOW closes INR 67.5 crore cheating case against Kamala Mills developer citing lack of evidence

#Law & Policy#India#Maharashtra#Mumbai City
Mumbai News Desk | Last Updated : 20th Mar, 2026
Synopsis

Mumbai Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has closed a cheating case involving approximately INR 67.5 crore against Kamala Mills owner and developer Ramesh Govani, following a detailed investigation into a redevelopment dispute. The closure, reported in the past week, comes after the agency filed a B summary report before a metropolitan magistrate court, citing insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The complaint related to a land redevelopment agreement under which compensation of INR 20 crore along with residential and commercial units had reportedly been promised but not delivered. Investigators found that the agreement between the parties had been mutually cancelled in 2017, a fact not disclosed in the original complaint, leading authorities to conclude that criminal intent could not be established.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police has closed a cheating case worth approximately INR 67.5 crore against Kamala Mills owner and real estate developer Ramesh Govani in the past week, after concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish criminal intent in a redevelopment dispute, with a B summary report submitted before a metropolitan magistrate court.


The case originated from a complaint filed by a private individual who alleged that Govani had entered into a redevelopment agreement for a land parcel and committed to pay INR 20 crore along with a combination of residential flats and commercial units. The total value of the alleged compensation was estimated at INR 67.5 crore. The complainant had claimed that neither the monetary consideration nor the promised units were delivered, prompting the filing of a police complaint.

The dispute related to a conveyance deed executed as part of the redevelopment arrangement, under which ownership of the land was transferred to the developer. The complainant had alleged that the developer secured the conveyance on the basis of assurances regarding compensation and future allocation of units in the project. It was further claimed that some of the units that were to be allocated had been sold to third parties or mortgaged, leading to financial losses.

The EOW had registered the case in 2024 under provisions related to cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust, and the developer was arrested shortly thereafter before being released on bail. The investigation subsequently involved examination of documentary evidence, including bank records, witness statements, and legal agreements between the parties.

During the course of the investigation, officials identified a deed of cancellation dated 2017, which indicated that the redevelopment agreement had been mutually terminated by both parties. Authorities also reviewed an affidavit submitted by the complainant before the Bombay High Court in a separate proceeding, which corroborated the cancellation of the agreement.

Investigators noted that this cancellation had not been disclosed at the time of filing the complaint, and that the omission materially affected the allegations of cheating and breach of trust. Based on the available evidence, the EOW concluded that there was no substantive proof to demonstrate fraudulent intent or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the developer.

A B summary report, which is filed when a case is found to be false or lacking sufficient evidence, was subsequently submitted before the court. The closure effectively brings the criminal proceedings in the matter to an end, subject to the court's acceptance of the report.

The case highlights the legal complexities associated with redevelopment agreements in urban real estate markets such as Mumbai, where disputes over compensation structures, ownership transfers, and contractual obligations can lead to prolonged litigation and enforcement scrutiny.

Have something to say? Post your comment