A Delhi court has ordered a fresh investigation into former cricketer and current Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir, who, along with others, faces allegations of cheating flat buyers in a housing project.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne set aside an earlier order by a magisterial court, stating that it lacked sufficient consideration of the allegations against Gambhir and did not adequately address his financial transactions with the involved companies.
Allegations Against Gautam Gambhir and Real Estate Firms
The case stems from complaints made against real estate firms Rudra Buildwell Realty Pvt. Ltd, H R Infracity Pvt Ltd, U M Architectures and Contractors Ltd, and Gautam Gambhir, who served as a director and brand ambassador for their joint venture project. Judge Gogne noted that Gautam Gambhir had direct dealings with investors, yet the previous court order failed to clarify his involvement adequately. Financial records indicated that Gambhir paid₹6 crore to Rudra Buildwell but also received₹4.85 crore in return. The judge emphasized that it was necessary to determine whether these funds were sourced from investor payments, as the core complaint pertains to cheating.
ALSO READ: Serious Allegations Against Gary Kirsten By Pakistan Cricket Board. Mohsin Naqvi Says, “Broke His…”
The court noted that Gambhir’s association with the company extended beyond his role as a brand ambassador, highlighting his position as an additional director from June 29, 2011, to October 1, 2013, a period when the project was actively advertised. Payments to Gambhir reportedly continued even after he resigned from this position. In response, the court remanded the case to the magisterial court to pass a detailed order that specifies allegations and evidence against each accused.
The “Serra Bella” Project: Unmet Promises and Alleged Deception
The complaints focus on the real estate project initially marketed as “Serra Bella” in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, which was later renamed “Pavo Real.” According to the prosecution, prospective buyers were enticed by advertisements and booked flats, paying sums between ₹6 lakh and ₹16 lakh. However, no significant construction or development occurred, and by 2016, buyers realized that the land had not progressed as promised.
The complainants also discovered that the project lacked state government approvals and had unresolved legal disputes, including a stay order issued by the Allahabad High Court in 2003 over land possession. By then, the companies had allegedly stopped responding to buyer inquiries, leaving them without recourse.
The court’s fresh directive calls for a comprehensive review of the case and a clearer determination of each accused’s involvement in the alleged scheme.
