The Lodha land fraud case has moved forward after a special Mumbai court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act took cognisance of an Enforcement Directorate complaint against former Lodha Developers director Rajendra N Lodha and four others over alleged fraudulent land transactions worth Rs 85 crore and diversion of funds. The court discharged Lodha’s son, Sahil, from the case and declined to issue process against another accused, Shital Palande.
The court’s order concerned allegations of money laundering linked to scheduled offences including cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal breach of trust. The underlying police complaints were registered in September 2025 and alleged losses of more than Rs 100 crore to Lodha Developers, according to the ED complaint reported by the Times of India.
The ED alleged that Rajendra Lodha had been associated with Lodha Developers since 1990 and was appointed a director in 2015. Its complaint stated that a board resolution authorised him to purchase land for the company but did not permit him to sell land, dispose of company assets or alienate transferable development rights.
According to the agency, Lodha allegedly misused a fiduciary position while carrying out unauthorised transactions with associates. The alleged transactions included routing funds through fabricated possession-holder memoranda, cash withdrawals and land deals. The allegations have not been finally adjudicated, and the court’s cognisance marks the continuation of proceedings rather than a finding of guilt.
In relation to Sahil Lodha, the court noted that he was not associated with Lodha Developers as an employee. The order recorded that the material before the court indicated that he had helped his father in land deals, but found that Rajendra Lodha was the principal person behind the alleged transactions. The judge observed that the alleged activity had been conducted in the son’s name without his active participation.
The court also declined to issue process against Shital Palande after noting an inconsistency in the ED’s description of her role. The agency described her occupation as business, while its complaint referred to her as a channel partner for sales with Lodha Developers. The judge questioned how she could be arrayed as an accused on that basis while the complaint described her connection to the company differently.
The proceedings highlight the importance of clear authority controls in real estate companies, where land purchases, development rights, possession documents and fund flows are often handled through multiple entities and intermediaries. In this case, the court’s scrutiny has focused not only on the alleged transactions but also on the roles assigned to individual accused persons and the documentary basis for proceeding against them.
The ED’s money-laundering investigation followed the police complaints and the alleged scheduled offences. The immediate next stage will involve the continuation of proceedings arising from the complaint, while the court’s observations on the discharged and excluded individuals will determine the scope of the case against the remaining accused.
