Prosecution Seeks Court Nod to Auction 131 DSK Properties for Rs 610 Crore Dues
In Mumbai, the prosecution has moved an application before the court seeking permission to make the attachment of 131 properties linked to the Deepak Sakharam Kulkarni (DSK) group absolute and conduct auctions to settle investor claims amounting to Rs 610 crore.
Following directions from the High Court in the alleged real estate fraud case, Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hire approached the court to facilitate the sale. The recovered proceeds are intended to clear the dues of 11,102 investors who deposited Rs 610 crore into various schemes floated by the group. The responsibility for recovering and distributing these funds lies with the competent authority and the Crime Branch.
According to the prosecution, the accused induced members of the public to invest in multiple deposit schemes run across 59 group companies between 2006 and 2017. These offerings promised annual interest rates ranging from 12.5 per cent on fixed deposits to between 10.5 per cent and 22 per cent on unsecured loans. Investigators have classified Rs 1,129 crore collected through these schemes as proceeds of crime.
The application outlined that investigating agencies identified a total of 463 properties connected to the group. Nine of these properties were previously released, while 323 belong to D. S. Kulkarni Developers Limited (DSKDL). DSKDL is currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) before the National Company Law Tribunal, initiated on a petition by the Bank of Maharashtra. The prosecution stated it holds no objection to releasing those 323 properties for insolvency resolution to settle dues of other debtors.
The 131 properties now sought for auction are owned directly by Deepak Kulkarni, his family members, and their partnership firms.
The plea faced opposition from DSK group counsel Viral Babar, who argued that the application was not submitted by the Competent Authority empowered to make property attachments absolute and disburse funds. Babar also contended that mandatory procedures under the special Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act were not observed by the prosecution.
Advocate Chinmay Page, representing Chaitanya Sevabhavi Sanstha, declined to comment on the proceedings until the court issues its ruling on the application.
