In today’s modern world, it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust anyone, especially in matters related to land and money. You never know who might betray you for a small amount of money. Something similar happened five years ago in Hyderabad. Perhaps no one has forgotten the case of Rishabh Chit Fund that occurred five years ago. The case became quite famous when a husband and wife duped around 500 people in the name of investment. Shailesh Kumar Gurjar and his wife Nandini committed fraud worth more than ₹200 crores under the name of Rishabh Chit Fund. Hundreds of people invested in their company, but they only received deceit in return.
The couple neither paid any interest nor any returns to the investors. When the matter was taken to the police, it was revealed that the company wasn’t even registered and was operating illegally. Shailesh Kumar Gurjar and his wife Nandini were arrested by Hyderabad CCS Police, and a case was filed against them under IPC Sections 416 and 420. However, after just eight months, both were granted bail by the court. It is also said that during the entire case, the couple had purchased multiple lands in Maharashtra’s Amravati.
Five years later, Shailesh’s name resurfaces in a new scam –
Five years after the Rishabh Chit Fund case, Shailesh Gurjar’s name has again surfaced in a new scam. As they say, a person’s nature never changes, and that’s exactly what seems to have happened here. Shailesh’s name is now being linked to the Supreet Enterprises scam.
Supreet Enterprises, operated by Shanti Kumar and his son Ashish Kumar Chelluri, has so far acquired land worth several crores through dubious means.
What is the full story?
Rajwant Hotels Private Limited (RHPL) entered into a lease agreement with Cache Furniture Limited for a period of seven years starting from 01.02.2014 to 31.01.2021, with a monthly rent of ₹50,000 and a security deposit of ₹50 lakhs to be made interest-free. However, neither was the deposit made nor was the rent paid to date. The lease agreement did not provide for any modifications in electrical connectivity or changes to the state excise bar license without written confirmation and approval from RHPL. The total leased land was only 5,000 square feet, but a handwritten note was added in the lease agreement between Cache Furniture Ltd and Cherigo Business Promotions (5256/2015) stating that the leased land was 18,600 square feet, an act of manipulation aimed at capturing neighboring lands. Cherigo Business Promotions later entered into a sub-lease agreement with Supreet Enterprises on 30.11.2015 for a period of seven years, but, as per the agreement with Cache Furniture, they had no right to alter electrical connectivity or change the bar license without written approval from RHPL. Supreet Enterprises took full advantage of this.
Supreet Enterprises caused Rajwant Hotels to default on its loan payments –
Rajwant Hotels Private Limited could not pay its loan installments on time because Supreet failed to pay the rent regularly, which led to Rajwant Hotels being unable to make its EMI payments to IIFL. Subsequently, IIFL issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFESI Act. At that time, Supreet Enterprises filed a case under SA 172/2018 in the DRT, stating that Supreet Enterprises would deposit ₹5,05,000 per month with IIFL by the 5th of each month, starting from June 2018, otherwise the interim stay would be revoked. This order was issued by DRT on 11.06.2018. However, Supreet made no payments, further impacting Rajwant Hotels. They did not deposit the required amount as per the order, leading to contempt of court.
Supreet’s new ploy to acquire land –
RHPL filed another case under SA 81/2020 in the DRT, where it was ordered that the petitioner’s lawyer would be heard via video conference. The respondent’s lawyer did not object to proceeding with the case. The Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s application and ordered the auction to continue.
Following the auction order, India Infoline Finance Limited (IIFL), a prominent non-banking financial corporation (NBFC), took symbolic possession of the property from Supreet on 28.01.2020. Later, IIFL published an auction notice in a small local newspaper in Visakhapatnam edition (without any date) in February 2020, setting the property value at ₹10 crores and an EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) of ₹1 crore for their outstanding dues. However, no prospective bidders showed up for the auction by 20.03.2020. Subsequently, IIFL published a second auction notice on the Foreclosure website on 21.11.2020, lowering the reserve price from ₹10 crores to ₹5 crores. In the second auction held on 10.12.2020, Supreet Enterprises participated, with Ashish Kumar (Shanti Kumar’s son) placing the bid. Notably, no other bidders participated, and Ashish Kumar purchased the land, valued at ₹32 crores, for just ₹5 crores, of which only ₹2.5 crores were deposited. This raises the question as to how an auction even took place when RBI guidelines mandate at least three parties for an auction. After this auction, allegations of a fake auction were leveled against IIFL, but IIFL categorically denied all such allegations.
The main question raised in this entire case, involving Supreet Enterprises and IIFL, is about the troubling intersection of power, property, and alleged corruption in India’s real estate market. The unethical auction procedures and illegal occupation charges against Supreet Enterprises, led by Ashish Kumar and Shanti Kumar Chelluri, have cast serious doubts over the transparency in managing such valuable properties. If the charges of coercion, low-price auctions, and illegal possession are proven, many parties involved could face severe reputational damage and stringent legal action. Furthermore, IIFL’s role in this controversial auction is under scrutiny, highlighting the need for strict oversight in the financial sector, especially in large property deals. As legal proceedings progress, this case could set a precedent for handling property disputes, powerful corporations, and the abuse of influence in such transactions. It will be interesting to see how the court views this entire matter.
