Mumbai: ₹44-Crore Hexaworld Housing Case Collapses As Court Clears Devisha Infra Director

Mumbai: ₹44-Crore Hexaworld Housing Case Collapses As Court Clears Devisha Infra Director

A Mumbai sessions court discharged Devisha Infrastructure’s former director Amit Balraj in a ₹44-crore Hexaworld housing fraud case, citing lack of evidence of conspiracy or intent to cheat flat buyers. The court noted no specific allegations against him in the chargesheet and said the prosecution’s claim that the company lacked land or permissions was factually incorrect.

Charul Shah JoshiUpdated: Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 10:34 AM IST
article-image
Mumbai: ₹44-Crore Hexaworld Housing Case Collapses As Court Clears Devisha Infra Director | Representational Image

Mumbai: The sessions court has discharged Amit Balraj, former director of Devisha Infrastructure Ltd, in a case registered by Taloja police for allegedly cheating flat purchasers of the Hexaworld project of Rs44 crore. Minister Chhagan Bhujbal’s son Sameer and nephew Pankaj were also booked in the case and were discharged earlier.

The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that Balraj had hatched any conspiracy or that the company had an intention to deceive buyers. It noted that the chargesheet did not contain specific allegations against Balraj or the company. According to the prosecution, Balraj served as director from 2005 to January 2012.

Around 25 acres of land at Mouje Rohinjan village in Panvel were proposed to be developed by Devisha Infrastructure. The prosecution alleged that the company accepted money from 2,343 flat purchasers despite not having possession of the land or permissions. The prosecution further stated that construction work on the project stopped after 2011.

Balraj’s lawyer Rizwan Merchant argued that other directors, including Rajesh Dharap, Sameer and Pankaj Bhujbal and Satyen Kesarkar, had already been discharged. Merchant told the court that the chargesheet did not contain material connecting Balraj to the alleged offence and that the prosecution relied on assumptions.

The court noted that the land title was acquired between April 13 and May 29, 2010 and permissions were obtained between 2009 and 2011. It held that the prosecution’s claim that there was no land or permissions was factually incorrect.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/