ED Raids TDI Infratech In Mohali

From Kundli Delays of 16–18 Years to ₹4,619 Crore Collected: The TDI Network Under Enforcement Directorate Scrutiny 

Late on 28 September 2026, a 15-member Enforcement Directorate team was still inside the Sector 119 office of TDI Infratech Ltd in Mohali. Searches that began in the morning stretched into the night. Officials seized and examined records, took mobile phones of company personnel for preliminary scrutiny, and focused on alleged irregularities in land compensation for the planned 200-foot-wide PR-6 arterial road connecting Sector 117 on Airport Road with the Banur-Landran road.

Sources indicated the probe centred on excess payments of around ₹6 crore effected through land transfers to relatives after the acquisition process had begun, and on Change of Land Use clearances that followed. The real-estate firm had later approached the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority seeking cancellation of certain registrations. The raid came days after ED teams had spent three days examining land records, CLU permissions and financial documents at the GMADA office itself.

This latest action against a TDI entity does not stand in isolation. It arrives against the backdrop of a multi-year Enforcement Directorate investigation into TDI Infrastructure Ltd, its directors Ravinder Taneja, Kamal Taneja and D.N. Taneja, and related entities that has already produced a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, successive provisional attachments, and a cumulative figure of ₹349.55 crore identified as proceeds of crime. The ED’s own May 2026 press release records that the Special Judge, PMLA, Patiala House District Court, issued notices to the accused on 28 April 2026. The investigation originated from multiple FIRs and chargesheets filed by Delhi Police.

According to the ED, TDI Infrastructure launched commercial and residential projects in Kundli/Sonipat and collected approximately ₹4,619.43 crore in advance bookings from 14,105 customers. The May 2026 prosecution-complaint release describes these customers as spread across 26 projects launched between 2005 and 2014. Occupation certificates for four projects remained pending and Park Street remained incomplete.

An earlier March 2026 attachment release had described the same collection figure as relating to 23 projects; both releases cite the identical customer count and rupee total. The central finding recorded by the agency is that substantial amounts collected from homebuyers were diverted to subsidiaries, erstwhile subsidiaries and land-owning companies as advances for purchasing land parcels and for other purposes. Customer funds were used for repayment of loans and investments instead of completion of the projects for which buyers had paid. This diversion produced construction delays and prevented timely possession. In one project the delays reached 16–18 years.

The financial enforcement unfolded in stages. In June 2024 the ED provisionally attached properties worth approximately ₹45.49 crore belonging to TDI Infrastructure and related entities. At that stage the identified proceeds of crime stood at approximately ₹165.69 crore.

In March 2026 the agency announced a further provisional attachment of approximately ₹206.40 crore, including land and commercial units in Kamaspur, Sonipat, bringing the then-stated cumulative attachment to roughly ₹251.88 crore. The May 2026 prosecution-complaint release subsequently stated that the agency had recently attached assets valued at ₹304.06 crore, taking the total attached proceeds of crime to ₹349.55 crore after including the earlier ₹45.49 crore attachment. The ED sought confiscation of these proceeds under the PMLA.

A separate criminal thread runs through a commercial-plot booking that began in 2006. The Delhi High Court examined the matter in TDI Infratech Ltd. v. Government of NCT & Anr. on 24 March 2025. The company sought quashing of FIR No. 57/2020 registered at Barakhamba Road Police Station under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The complainant had been offered a commercial plot of 204 sq. yards in a future TDI project, paid ₹8 lakh initially and ultimately approximately ₹22.47 lakh. The project was later identified as TDI City in Mohali.

The complainant alleged delay, subsequent closure of the project, and forfeiture of his money. The investigating agency’s status report recorded that the company had collected money between 2006 and 2009 even though the project did not then possess the required approval from the Department of Town and Country Planning. The investigation produced a chargesheet under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC against TDI Infratech and directors Kamal Taneja, Ravinder Kumar Taneja, Devki Nandan Taneja and Ved Prakash. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that there was prima facie material indicating the commission of the alleged offences and that the allegations contained the essential ingredients of the charged sections.

An earlier Mohali controversy had already reached a local court in 2013. The Indian Express reported that a court directed Mohali police to register an FIR against TDI on allegations of forgery, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The complainant claimed he had been cheated of more than 100 square yards of land and that approximately 145 other victims were involved in a fraud running into several crores. That complaint sat on the record more than a decade before the present PMLA proceedings.

Environmental enforcement forms an independent and equally documented chapter. The National Green Tribunal considered connected matters including OA No. 155/2020, Manorama Sharma & Anr. v. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors., concerning TDI City Kundli, an approximately 1,200-acre integrated township launched in 2005. Complaints covered inadequate sewage treatment, solid-waste management, water and electricity infrastructure, parks and green areas, and other breaches of environmental requirements. Joint committees, the Haryana State Pollution Control Board and other authorities generated extensive material.

In its July 2022 judgment the NGT accepted the joint committee’s findings and imposed environmental compensation: ₹72 crore for TDI Kingsburry Apartments, GT Road, Sonipat; ₹10.8 crore for My Floor 2, Sector 60, Sonipat; and ₹12.28 crore for Tuscan City, Sector 58, Sonipat—totalling ₹95.08 crore. Payment was directed within three months, subject to any contrary order of the Supreme Court or High Court. The Tribunal specifically rejected objections raised by TDI. The order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5189–5190 of 2022, TDI Infrastructure Ltd. v. Kissan Udey Samiti, and remained listed into 2025.

Inspection reports underlying the NGT order recorded deficiencies in rainwater-harvesting pits and sewage-treatment infrastructure, questions over the existence of adequate sewage and water pipelines across the plotted component of the township, and whether the developer possessed all of the land necessary for the promised integrated infrastructure. Earlier HSPCB action had already recommended prosecution and compensation against individual projects, including ₹46.50 lakh in one instance against Kingsburry Apartments. TDI placed its own documents concerning occupation certificates, sewage-treatment plants, rainwater harvesting, roads and waste-management infrastructure before the Tribunal.

In March 2025 the ED provisionally attached eight commercial spaces at TDI Mall, GT Road, Kundli, valued at approximately ₹5.61 crore, treating them as proceeds of crime under the PMLA. The underlying matter arose from three criminal complaints filed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board in 2020 concerning the same three projects—Kingsburry Apartments, My Floor 2 and Tuscan City. The ED recorded that TDI was required to treat sewage through appropriate sewage-treatment plants and obtain the necessary consent to operate; instead the company collected untreated sewage and used tankers to discharge it onto open land for percolation. The agency calculated the connected proceeds of crime at ₹5.61 crore.

A distinct set of planning controversies surfaced in TDI City Panipat. In November 2024 Haryana town-planning authorities issued show-cause notices concerning alleged land-use violations. Reports described illegal sale of undetermined land, green areas and parks, unauthorised construction on open and green areas and UD land, and alteration of the approved layout without prior permission. Activist allegations added that some land had been sold at values substantially below the prevailing circle rate.

TDI chairman Ravinder Taneja was quoted as saying the company was investigating employees allegedly involved, had lodged police complaints, and that some sale deeds had been cancelled. Corporate records distinguish TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd., formerly Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Ltd., as a separate entity with Taneja-family directors including Kamal Taneja and Devki Nandan Taneja.

Consumer litigation has been continuous. In Panipat, Haryana consumer commission proceedings against TDI Infracorp involved plots of 250 square yards, disputes over enhanced external-development charges and infrastructure-development charges, and alleged deficiencies in the developer’s treatment of purchasers. In Mohali, a consolidated 2026 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission judgment considered nine appeals arising from Wellington Heights, TDI City, Sector 117.

The State Commission had earlier directed execution of conveyance deeds without VAT, refund of service tax with interest, refund of parking charges, excess EDC and club membership charges, plus compensation. The NCDRC modified aspects of that outcome: VAT could not be charged to the purchasers under the circumstances; service tax could be charged where applicable and paid; parking could be separately charged under the contractual arrangement; and club-membership liability was conditioned on the club being fully functional.

Park Street appears in both consumer records and the ED’s 2026 description of incomplete projects. An earlier consumer case concerned a purchaser who had paid approximately ₹5.43 lakh for a shop whose allotment was later cancelled. The ED’s prosecution complaint notes that Park Street remains incomplete while occupation certificates for four other projects remain pending.

Haryana RERA’s official database continues to list TDI Infrastructure and TDI Infracorp matters into 2026, including complaints by buyers such as Nidhi Jain, Asha Jindal, Subodh Bansal, Parmod Jain and Deepak Arora, and a complaint by HRERA itself against TDI Infracorp listed for hearing in October 2026.

On 15 May 2026, in Execution No. 1208 of 2024 arising from Complaint No. 2950 of 2019 filed by Narender Kumar against TDI Infrastructure Ltd., HRERA Panchkula ordered civil imprisonment proceedings against five directors—Kamal Taneja, Devki Nandan Taneja, Ravinder Kumar Taneja, Renu Taneja and Ved Prakash—for repeated non-compliance with directions. The order contemplated three months’ civil imprisonment, with arrest warrants to follow after deposit of the subsistence allowance.

Corporate structure itself forms part of the documented complexity. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is recorded as formerly Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. TDI Infratech Ltd. is recorded as formerly Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. is recorded as formerly Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Ltd. Project-specific and associated entities appear across environmental, regulatory and criminal records. An alleged transaction involving one company cannot automatically be attributed to another merely because both carry the TDI or Taneja name.

The chronology is unbroken. TDI City Kundli was launched in 2005. Between 2005 and 2014 the projects that later formed the core of the ED investigation collected ₹4,619.43 crore from 14,105 customers. The 2006 commercial-plot booking ultimately produced FIR No. 57/2020 and a 2024 chargesheet. A 2013 Mohali court direction produced another FIR. Environmental complaints and HSPCB criminal complaints in 2020 fed later ED action.

The NGT imposed ₹95.08 crore compensation in 2022. The ED attached ₹45.49 crore in 2024, ₹206.40 crore in March 2026, and recorded a cumulative ₹349.55 crore by May 2026 when the prosecution complaint was filed. HRERA ordered civil imprisonment of five directors in May 2026. The NCDRC modified earlier consumer directions in 2026. In late September 2026 the ED was again inside a TDI office in Mohali examining land-compensation records linked to the PR-6 road.

The documented record therefore presents a single, continuous pattern: large-scale collection of customer advances, prolonged non-delivery or incomplete projects, diversion of funds to related entities for land acquisition, loans and investments, environmental non-compliance that generated both NGT compensation orders and a separate PMLA attachment, planning notices over alleged sales of green and UD land, criminal chargesheets for pre-launch collection, continuing RERA litigation, and a civil-imprisonment order against directors.

The ED’s own language places the diversion of buyer funds at the centre of the construction delays that left thousands of purchasers without possession for periods measured in decades. The September 2026 Mohali raid on land-compensation irregularities simply extends that same pattern into a fresh geographic and transactional setting. The scale—₹4,619.43 crore collected, ₹349.55 crore attached, 14,105 customers, delays of 16–18 years, ₹95.08 crore environmental compensation—renders the TDI network one of the most extensively documented real-estate enforcement targets currently before Indian investigative and regulatory authorities.