The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a prosecution complaint against ADEL Landmarks Ltd., its former directors Hem Singh Bharana and Sumit Bharana, and 38 other individuals and entities in connection with an alleged ₹1,075 crore homebuyer fraud involving 4,771 buyers across Haryana.

The complaint has been filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, before the Special Court in Gurugram, which issued notices to all the accused on November 3, 2026.

According to the ED, the investigation was initiated on the basis of 74 FIRs and chargesheets filed by Haryana and Delhi Police, including cases registered by the Economic Offences Wing. The complaints relate to allegations that ADEL Landmarks, its promoters and associated companies collected money from homebuyers for residential projects but failed to deliver the promised flats, plots and other units within the stipulated timelines.

The agency has alleged that the company collected approximately ₹1,075 crore as booking advances from 4,771 customers across several residential group housing projects launched between 2006 and 2012. These included Cosmocourt, Cosmocity-I, Cosmocity-III, Skyville, Redwood Residency, Era Green World, Era Divine Court and ADEL Divine Court.

The ED has also provisionally attached immovable properties, including buildings, plots and land parcels measuring approximately 340 acres across Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Valued at around ₹585.46 crore, the properties are held by ADEL Landmarks and related entities. The agency has sought their confiscation, alleging that they constitute proceeds of crime under the PMLA. Further investigation into the matter is underway.

Thousands Of Homebuyers Await Possession As Projects Remain Incomplete

According to the ED, the residential projects were launched across Gurugram, Faridabad and Palwal over a period of six years, beginning in 2006. However, several of these developments remain incomplete, leaving thousands of customers waiting for possession of the properties they had booked.

The agency’s investigation found that homebuyers had been waiting between 12 and 19 years for delivery of their flats, plots and other units. The complaints underlying the investigation relate to the company’s alleged failure to complete the projects within the promised timelines despite collecting substantial booking advances from customers.

The ED has alleged that instead of deploying the money towards construction and completion of the respective housing projects, ADEL Landmarks, through its directors and promoters, diverted a significant portion of the funds to group companies. These transfers were allegedly made as advances for purchasing land parcels and for other purposes.

According to the agency, the diversion of funds affected the completion of the residential developments and ultimately resulted in buyers not receiving the properties for which they had paid.

The investigation, based on the 74 FIRs and chargesheets filed by Haryana and Delhi Police, is examining the alleged diversion of homebuyers’ money and the role of the company, its former directors, promoters and associated entities.

ED Alleges Diversion of Homebuyers’ Money To Group Companies

The ED has alleged that ADEL Landmarks and its promoters diverted funds collected from homebuyers instead of using the money for the construction and completion of the residential projects. According to the agency, a significant portion of the booking advances received from customers was transferred to group companies under the pretext of land purchases and other business transactions.

The investigation has examined the movement of funds between the company and its associated entities, including the alleged use of money collected for specific housing developments for purposes unrelated to their completion. The ED has alleged that these transactions contributed to the delay and non-delivery of residential units despite the company having collected substantial amounts from buyers.

As part of the investigation, the agency has provisionally attached immovable properties measuring approximately 340 acres across Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The properties, valued at ₹585.46 crore, include land parcels, plots and buildings held by the company and its associated entities.

The ED has sought confiscation of the attached assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, alleging that they represent proceeds of crime generated through the diversion of homebuyers’ funds. The attachment forms part of the agency’s efforts to identify and secure assets connected with the alleged money laundering activities.

ADEL Landmarks Had Faced SEBI Action Over An Unregistered Investment Scheme

The company’s regulatory troubles date back to 2013, when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) received complaints against ADEL Landmarks, then known as Era Landmarks Ltd., over a plot pre-booking scheme at its Cosmocity project in Sector 103, Gurugram. The complaints alleged that the developer had collected money from investors but failed to refund the amounts within the stipulated period.

Following a preliminary inquiry, SEBI issued an interim order on June 5, 2014, restraining the company and its directors from collecting fresh money under the existing scheme or launching new investment plans.

The regulator had prima facie found that the company’s purchase and development of future land arrangement amounted to a collective investment scheme (CIS) being operated without the mandatory registration.

The interim order also directed the company to provide details of the funds collected and refunded, along with information about its investors and assets. It further prohibited the disposal of properties associated with the scheme and the diversion of funds collected from the public.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

SEBI subsequently passed a final order on October 7, 2015, directing ADEL Landmarks to wind up the unregistered collective investment schemes and refund the money collected from investors, along with applicable returns, within three months. The company was also directed to submit a repayment report supported by bank statements and acknowledgements from investors.

The regulator noted that the company had collected approximately ₹252 crore from 1,621 investors through its pre-booking schemes in Gurugram, Palwal and Faridabad. ADEL had claimed to have refunded ₹50.52 crore to customers, but SEBI directed it to complete the remaining repayments in accordance with the order.

The October 2015 order also restrained the company and several directors and former directors from accessing the securities market for four years. The restrictions covered buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, while the company was prohibited from launching or operating collective investment schemes without the required regulatory approval.

Haryana Government Audit Flags ₹56.49 Crore Collected From 448 Customers

ADEL Landmarks had also come under scrutiny from Haryana’s Department of Town and Country Planning over the collection of booking amounts for its Cosmos City-2 project in Sector 103, Gurugram. The matter was subsequently examined in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Public Accounts Committee’s 74th Report, presented in March 2017.

According to the report, Era Landmarks Ltd., subsequently renamed ADEL Landmarks, had collected approximately ₹55 crore from prospective buyers for the project before the building plans received approval in April 2013. The project had been pre-launched in April 2012, with booking receipts issued to around 400 customers.

The department’s special audit subsequently found that ADEL Landmarks had collected approximately ₹56.49 crore from 448 customers as booking amounts. Of this, ₹10.367 crore had reportedly been refunded to investors or adjusted against other projects, while ₹46.13 crore remained outstanding for repayment.

Following the department’s findings, the Town and Country Planning Department issued notices to the companies involved and directed officials to lodge a police complaint over the alleged illegal booking of flats. An FIR was registered against Era Landmarks at Rajendra Park police station in Gurugram on August 16, 2014, under FIR No. 261.

In its response to the department, ADEL Landmarks stated that customers had voluntarily approached the company with advance payments for upcoming projects and had agreed to transfer their allotments to another licensed project. The company also informed the department that it had settled the claims of 278 customers through refunds or alternate allotments. It acknowledged that some refund cheques had bounced but said replacement cheques, along with interest, were being offered.

The department, however, found the company’s response unsatisfactory and continued proceedings under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976. The matter was subsequently examined by the Public Accounts Committee, which called for further inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the collection of booking amounts and the department’s monitoring of the project.

Criminal Complaint Over ₹11.74 Crore Ends In High Court Settlement

ADEL Landmarks also faced a criminal complaint in connection with the non-allotment of a residential unit despite receiving payments of approximately ₹11.74 crore from a customer.

The matter came before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s ADEL Landmarks Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Another, involving FIR No. 254 of 2015, registered at Rajendra Park police station in Gurugram. The complaint was filed by Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi, who alleged that he had paid ₹11,74,75,600 towards a unit in a project launched by the company but had not received the promised allotment.

The complainant also alleged that the company had changed its name from Era Landmarks Ltd. to ADEL Landmarks Ltd., causing prejudice to his interests, and that the money paid by him had been misappropriated.

ADEL Landmarks subsequently approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties. The state opposed the petition, pointing out that the company was involved in several other cases of a similar nature.

In its order dated June 2, 2016, the High Court noted that the complainant had appeared before the trial court and confirmed that the dispute had been settled and that he was satisfied with the amount received. Allowing the company’s petition, the court quashed FIR No. 254 of 2015 and the criminal proceedings arising from it.

However, the court specifically clarified that its order would not affect the credibility of the company or the grievances of complainants in other cases pending against ADEL Landmarks before the same or other courts.

SEBI Continues Proceedings As Refund Disputes Persist

Even after its October 2015 order directing ADEL Landmarks to wind up its collective investment schemes and refund investors, SEBI continued to examine the company’s compliance with the repayment directions.

In August 2019, the regulator issued another order in connection with the original proceedings. SEBI noted that the company had claimed to have refunded investors through monetary payments and allotments in other projects. However, the regulator observed that the company had not submitted all the supporting documents it had undertaken to provide, including evidence of repayments and acknowledgements from investors.

SEBI subsequently directed ADEL Landmarks and its directors to publish public notices inviting claims from investors who were still awaiting refunds. The regulator also made it clear that the original repayment directions would continue to apply if outstanding investor dues remained unpaid.

The matter also resulted in separate adjudication proceedings. On June 30, 2020, SEBI imposed a penalty of ₹25 lakh jointly and severally on ADEL Landmarks and six directors, including Sumit Bharana, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Arvind Kumar Birla, Rashmi Bharana, Sanjay Chawla and Manisha Bharana.

The adjudication order found that the company’s plot pre-booking arrangement constituted a collective investment scheme under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act and that it had operated the scheme without obtaining the mandatory registration. SEBI concluded that the company and the associated directors had violated Section 12(1B) of the Act and Regulation 3 of the SEBI Collective Investment Schemes Regulations, 1999.

The ₹25 lakh penalty was directed to be paid jointly and severally by the company and the six individuals. The proceedings added another regulatory action to the company’s record, following the earlier directions to refund investors and wind up the unregistered schemes.

Insolvency Proceedings Add Another Layer To ADEL Landmarks’ Legal Troubles

ADEL Landmarks’ financial difficulties also led to insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, after Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. filed an application against the developer under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The tribunal admitted the application on December 5, 2018, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the company’s affairs.

During the insolvency process, Art Constructions Private Ltd. emerged as the successful resolution applicant. Its resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 82.66% of the voting share in September 2022. The Resolution Professional subsequently approached the NCLT seeking approval of the plan.

The resolution plan, however, encountered further proceedings after the ED provisionally attached properties linked to the company on January 9, 2026. The NCLT initially sent the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration through an order dated February 27, 2026.

Art Constructions challenged the decision before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which set aside the NCLT order on April 16, 2026, allowing the resolution plan approval application to be reconsidered.

On May 19, 2026, the NCLT approved Art Constructions’ resolution plan, valued at approximately ₹461.75 crore. The plan includes provisions for the implementation of the company’s projects and the treatment of homebuyers’ claims. The ED had also participated in the insolvency proceedings following its provisional attachment of properties belonging to the company.

The approval of the resolution plan marks an important development in the company’s insolvency proceedings, which had remained pending for several years. The implementation process is expected to address outstanding project obligations, including the interests of homebuyers awaiting possession. Subsequent proceedings before the NCLT have also dealt with the treatment of homebuyers who submitted claims after the prescribed deadline.

Insolvency Resolution Faces Further Legal Challenges As ED’s Recall Plea Is Rejected

Even after the approval of ADEL Landmarks’ resolution plan, the company’s insolvency proceedings continued to face legal challenges involving the treatment of attached properties and outstanding homebuyer claims.

On May 19, 2026, the NCLT approved a resolution plan submitted by Art Constructions Private Ltd. for ADEL Landmarks. The plan had earlier received approval from the Committee of Creditors, with 82.66% of the voting share. The resolution process also involved questions concerning properties attached by the ED, pending claims from homebuyers and the treatment of certain residential units.
National Company Law Tribunal+1

The ED subsequently approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), seeking recall of its April 16, 2026 order that had set aside the NCLT’s earlier decision to send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration.

In an order dated November 2, 2026, the NCLAT rejected the ED’s application, observing that the agency had not challenged the relevant orders through the appropriate appellate process within the prescribed period. The tribunal also clarified that its April order had neither stayed nor set aside the ED’s provisional attachment of properties.

The resolution plan remains approved, with its implementation and the treatment of outstanding homebuyer claims continuing to be important aspects of the insolvency process. ADEL Landmarks has also published updates on its official website regarding implementation, project approvals and the NCLT’s July 15, 2026 order concerning homebuyers who submitted claims after the prescribed deadline.

A Long Trail Of Consumer Complaints And Legal Proceedings

Apart from the SEBI proceedings, criminal complaints and insolvency litigation, ADEL Landmarks has also been involved in consumer disputes and other legal proceedings across different judicial forums.

The company’s litigation record includes matters before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), state and district consumer commissions, civil courts and criminal courts. Several proceedings relate to disputes involving property bookings, delayed possession, refunds and contractual obligations towards buyers.

The insolvency proceedings before the NCLT and subsequent appeals before the NCLAT have also involved multiple applications concerning creditor claims, project obligations and the treatment of homebuyers under the resolution plan.

The volume and range of these proceedings reflect the company’s prolonged legal difficulties, although the existence of a pending consumer complaint or civil case does not establish wrongdoing. The outcome of individual cases also varies, with some disputes being settled and others continuing through the judicial process.

ED Prosecution Brings ADEL Landmarks’ Long Legal History Back Into Focus

The latest prosecution complaint against ADEL Landmarks brings renewed attention to a company that has faced regulatory action, investor complaints, criminal proceedings and insolvency litigation over several years.

While the company’s resolution plan received NCLT approval in May 2026, thousands of homebuyers remain at the centre of the disputes surrounding its unfinished residential projects. The ED’s latest action now places the alleged diversion of ₹1,075 crore collected from 4,771 buyers before the Special PMLA Court in Gurugram.

With the agency seeking confiscation of properties valued at ₹585.46 crore and further investigation continuing, the proceedings will determine the legal consequences of the alleged money laundering and the treatment of assets linked to the case.