After BPTP & Raheja Builder Now Its Godrej Properties With Canara Scamming With Real Estate Buyers

In the high-stakes ecosystem of National Capital Region real estate, where under-construction towers rise on the promise of homeownership and bank finance flows on the strength of individual credit scores, a disturbing pattern of allegations has emerged. At its centre stand Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan and companies linked to the Sanya group—most prominently AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd.—together with claims that certain transactions involving Godrej Properties units and Canara Bank home loans may have been structured in ways that shift commercial financing risk onto ordinary individuals.

The allegations are serious. They describe a model in which persons with strong credit profiles are allegedly recruited, shown as purchasers, temporarily funded for down payments that are then reversed, and left as the named borrowers on substantial residential home loans while the economic benefit and EMI servicing allegedly remain under the control of the developer or its associates. The stated incentive is modest—reportedly in the range of 4–5 per cent. The economic logic, if the claims are accurate, is far larger: access to cheaper retail housing credit instead of more expensive commercial or project finance.

Yet the distinction between allegation and proof must be drawn with precision. Public court records independently establish a substantial and recent adverse litigation history around Roop Kishore Madan and AIMS Sanya Developers. They do not, on the material presently available, establish that Godrej Properties or Canara Bank senior officials knowingly participated in a fraudulent conspiracy. That boundary is not semantic. It is the difference between investigative scrutiny and defamation.

The Documented Record Against AIMS Sanya and Roop Kishore Madan

Court judgments available in the public domain confirm multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Brahama International LLP v. Aims Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. (CC NI Act No. 105/2020), the Delhi District Court on 30 June 2025 convicted the company and its directors, including Roop Kishore Madan as Managing Director. The dispute arose from a Space Buyer Agreement for a unit in Landmark Towers, Noida, under an Assured Return Plan. Payments stopped; cheques bounced.

A further judgment in Satyendra Kumar Gupta v. M/s Aims Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (CT Cases 5584/2020), delivered by the Saket court on 12 May 2026, again convicted the company and named Roop Kishore Madan as Managing Director in connection with another Landmark Towers space-buyer arrangement and a dishonoured cheque.

These are not pending complaints. They are trial-court convictions arising from substantially similar assured-return / space-buyer structures linked to the same project. Appeals in the earlier cluster of matters were reported as dismissed. A 2019 Companies Act prosecution by the Registrar of Companies against Roop Kishore Madan concerning the statutory limit on directorships was also disposed of by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Central, Tis Hazari.

Additional public records show Income-Tax proceedings involving Madan and a 2010 search covering the Sanya Group. Delhi High Court proceedings in early 2026 recorded a personal undertaking by Madan regarding substantial principal and interest liabilities, with property security and travel restrictions. AIMS Sanya itself has a documented insolvency history, with CIRP commencement in January 2019, and appears across NI Act, tax, RERA-related and civil disputes. The company remains listed as promoter of The Tempean – Phase 1 under UP-RERA.

Bela Madan’s personal record is narrower. Public material shows her as a co-director in certain Sanya-linked entities and as a defendant in a 2026 Delhi civil/property matter in which she was proceeded against ex parte; that judgment does not establish fraud or forgery by her. Earlier consumer proceedings that initially named both directors resulted in their deletion as individual parties. Guilt by association is not evidence.

The litigation footprint around AIMS Sanya and Madan is therefore real, recent and multi-layered. It does not automatically prove the separate allegation of a systematic proxy home-loan network involving Godrej properties and Canara Bank. It does, however, make the corporate and financial environment surrounding these individuals a legitimate subject of heightened scrutiny.

The Alleged Mechanism: When Paperwork and Economics Diverge

Ordinary builder subvention is not inherently unlawful. In a conventional structure the developer undertakes to service interest or pre-EMI for a defined period while the bank treats the individual as a genuine retail borrower. The critical question is always the same: does the economic reality match the documentation?

The allegations describe a more aggressive variant. An individual with a clean credit history is approached and offered a fee. A property—allegedly in certain cases linked to Godrej projects—is shown. A down payment is arranged or temporarily funded; the funds are then allegedly returned. A tripartite agreement is executed. The bank sanctions a large home loan at residential rates. The developer or connected entities allegedly service the EMIs. The named borrower remains liable. The property may later be transferred while the original loan stays attached to the original name.

If this sequence occurred, the transaction would no longer be a genuine home purchase financed by a retail loan. It would be commercial financing obtained through the creditworthiness of a proxy. The bank would be carrying residential-borrower risk. The developer would have obtained cheaper capital. The individual would be left holding a multi-crore liability whose economic control lay elsewhere.

The decisive evidence in any such case is not the existence of a tripartite agreement or a sanction letter. It is the money trail: the source of the initial contribution, any reversal entries, the actual accounts from which EMIs were paid, the subsequent transfer documents, and whether the lender was given a complete and truthful picture of the transaction’s economics.

Godrej Properties and Canara Bank: What Is Established and What Is Not

Public records confirm that Canara Bank has entered into tripartite agreements involving residential projects, including arrangements in which the bank has asserted financial-creditor status against developers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on the strength of those agreements. Historical charge records also show Canara Bank among lenders to Godrej Properties Limited at various points. A February 2026 public disclosure referenced a Godrej Summit property in Gurgaon involving a tripartite structure and Canara Bank.

None of this establishes institutional knowledge of, or participation in, any fraudulent proxy-financing scheme involving the Madans. A bank can finance genuine homebuyers in a Godrej project without any impropriety. The allegation that specific units were structured through the proxy model, that down payments were reversed, that EMIs were serviced by connected parties, and that senior bank or developer officials knew the true character of the transactions, remains an allegation requiring transaction-level proof—loan files, bank statements, developer ledgers, GST and TDS records, and property-registration documents.

The broader context, however, is not imaginary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly examined subvention arrangements in the NCR, directed CBI probes into alleged bank-builder nexuses, and noted instances in which homebuyers were left servicing loans after developers defaulted on their subvention commitments. Chargesheets in related matters have named bank officials. The vulnerability of the retail housing-finance channel to regulatory arbitrage is a recognised systemic concern.

Why the Structure, If Real, Would Be Dangerous

Residential home loans carry lower interest rates and more favourable underwriting assumptions than commercial or project finance precisely because they are presumed to rest on the genuine repayment capacity and intent of an individual homebuyer. When that presumption is hollowed out—when the borrower is effectively a credit vehicle—the risk is socialised onto the banking system and, ultimately, onto the original named individual if the arrangement collapses.

The borrower becomes the weakest link. The developer obtains liquidity. Intermediaries may earn fees. The property may change hands. The original name remains on the liability. In a stressed real-estate market, that asymmetry can leave ordinary people facing recovery proceedings for loans whose economic benefit they never truly controlled.

This is why the questions that matter are concrete and documentary:

• Who paid the initial contribution and where did the money go?
• From whose accounts were EMIs actually paid, and over what period?
• Did the bank’s credit notes and inspection reports reflect the true economic character of the transaction?
• Were properties transferred with lender consent, proper liability adjustment and discharge of the original borrower?
• How many such individuals and properties were involved, and what is the aggregate outstanding?

The Investigative Imperative

The confirmed convictions against AIMS Sanya and Roop Kishore Madan supply a documented pattern of failed assured-return arrangements and dishonoured instruments linked to Landmark Towers. That pattern justifies close examination of any financing structures associated with the same management. The allegations linking those structures to Godrej units and Canara Bank loans raise the stakes further—but they do not yet constitute proof of institutional collusion.

A serious investigation must therefore begin with the records, not with rhetoric: booking forms, allotment letters, complete loan applications and sanction notes, disbursement schedules, buyer and developer bank statements, EMI repayment trails, GST invoices, property-registration and assignment documents, internal bank correspondence, and any correspondence between developer and borrower. Only those documents can distinguish a legitimate subvention product from an aggressive financing arrangement, a compliance failure, or a deliberately engineered diversion of retail credit.

Until that documentary trail is examined and verified, the claim of a Madan–Godrej–Canara proxy network remains an investigative allegation rather than an established fact. The public record already shows that Roop Kishore Madan and AIMS Sanya Developers have faced repeated, recent criminal convictions arising from space-buyer and assured-return structures. The larger allegation—that residential home-loan channels were systematically used to finance transactions economically controlled by another party—demands the same standard of proof.

India’s housing-finance system rests on the integrity of the distinction between genuine retail credit and commercial financing. When that distinction is allegedly blurred, the cost is not abstract. It is measured in the liabilities left with individuals who may never have been the true economic beneficiaries of the money. The records, not the denials, will decide whether that cost was incurred.

Right of reply The allegations concerning Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan, entities associated with the Sanya group, Godrej Properties, Canara Bank and any individual officers or employees must be put to the concerned parties. Any substantive response, documentary clarification, denial or explanation received should be published with equal prominence. No person or institution is to be treated as having committed fraud merely because they appear in an allegation or have been involved in civil, tax, insolvency or criminal proceedings. The specific claims of a systematic proxy-financing network involving Godrej-linked properties and Canara Bank loans require independent, transaction-level verification.