Mumbai: Film producer Parag Sanghvi who was in judicial custody for an alleged Rs13.74-crore cheating case, was arrested again by the economic offences wing (EOW) of Mumbai police on Monday in yet another cheating case.
On Monday, the Housing unit of EOW took custody of Sanghvi from the Arthur Road jail in connection with a 2018 cheating case. The court gave the police one day’s custody and then, on Tuesday, again sent him to judicial custody.
Sanghvi, CEO of Alumbra Entertainment Pvt Ltd, is one of the partners in a construction firm with Jitendra Jain, who is the director of Kamla Landmarc.
Purshotam Bijlani, the complainant in the case, alleged that in 2009, he had booked two flats in an upcoming project of Kamla Landmarc group’s sister concern, Kamlakshmi Developers LLP, and partners Jitendra Jain, Jinendra Jain and Ketan Shah took Rs3.9 crore against two flats measuring 1,600 sq ft each. There are multiple cheating and forgery cases against the Jain family in Mumbai.
Police said that the accused partners failed to complete the project or hand over possession. Fifteen more buyers came forward with similar plaints. Some of the proceeds had gone to Sanghvi’s account too.
On Monday, the Housing unit of EOW took custody of Sanghvi from the Arthur Road jail in connection with a 2018 cheating case. The court gave the police one day’s custody and then, on Tuesday, again sent him to judicial custody.
Sanghvi, CEO of Alumbra Entertainment Pvt Ltd, is one of the partners in a construction firm with Jitendra Jain, who is the director of Kamla Landmarc.
Purshotam Bijlani, the complainant in the case, alleged that in 2009, he had booked two flats in an upcoming project of Kamla Landmarc group’s sister concern, Kamlakshmi Developers LLP, and partners Jitendra Jain, Jinendra Jain and Ketan Shah took Rs3.9 crore against two flats measuring 1,600 sq ft each. There are multiple cheating and forgery cases against the Jain family in Mumbai.
Police said that the accused partners failed to complete the project or hand over possession. Fifteen more buyers came forward with similar plaints. Some of the proceeds had gone to Sanghvi’s account too.
