The Bank of Maharashtra ₹1,161 crore Pune lease case has raised concerns over transparency, property ownership disputes and tender processes. The lease, linked to a commercial project in Baner, involves long-term financial commitments by the Bank of Maharashtra. Activists and stakeholders have questioned whether alternative options, such as in-house development, were adequately considered. Allegations include prior warnings about disputed property status and discrepancies in leasing decisions. While the bank cited operational needs like space constraints and expansion, experts stress that public sector decisions must ensure accountability, financial prudence and regulatory compliance.

Bank of Maharashtra ₹1,161 Crore Pune Lease Case: Disputed Property, Tender Questions and Silence

Serious questions surround Bank of Maharashtra’s ₹1,161 crore Pune office lease, involving disputed ownership claims, tender concerns, carpet area discrepancies and alleged intimidation.

Bank of Maharashtra’s ₹1,161 crore Pune office lease has come under scrutiny after allegations surfaced around the Montclaire commercial project in Baner, Pune.

Months before the tender, Rajesh Laxmikant Mamidwar reportedly warned Kiran Manohar Chamle and American investor Vinod Gannu that the properties were disputed.

According to the written message, the properties should not be proposed for leasing or selling. Chamle allegedly replied with a single line: “Noted, Sir.”

Six months later, Bank of Maharashtra executed a 15-year lease on the same properties, committing public funds worth ₹1,161 crore over the lease period.

Bank of Maharashtra lease and the Lokmangal space crisis

Bank of Maharashtra has said its Lokmangal head office at Shivaji Nagar, Pune, faced serious space constraints and could not support further vertical construction.

The Bank’s staff strength reportedly rose from around 550 to 1,050, while its cybersecurity operations centre required a permanent, secure operating location.

Earlier attempts to secure space failed in December 2022, June 2023 and December 2023, including a troubled Erandwane lease facing eviction.

In July 2024, the BoM board considered construction, purchase and long lease options before approving a long lease for approximately 100,000 square feet.

The public tender appeared in Times of India, Financial Express and Loksatta on 24 October 2024 and 7 November 2024.

The registered lease deed was executed on 10 January 2025. Possession was taken in October 2025, and Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman inaugurated the facility.

Public accountability questions from activists and shareholders

Devidas Tuljapurkar, former BoM director and chairman of All India Bank of Maharashtra Employees Federation, questioned transparency, stakeholder consultation and financial implications.

RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar called the lease a “classic case of financial misjudgement,” alleging unnecessary burden on public funds and private benefit.

Vivek Velankar, RTI activist, BoM shareholder and president of Sajag Nagrik Manch, sought scrutiny by CAG and the Union Ministry of Finance.

Velankar argued that Bank of Maharashtra could construct on its own Lokmangal land for far less than the claimed long-term rental outflow.

Vinod Gannu, Genesis Green and the Montclaire project

Vinod Gannu, an Indian-origin investor based in Stamford, Connecticut, invested in Montclaire through Genesis Green LLC, a US-registered company.

The investment was reportedly structured through a memorandum of understanding between Konbil Landmark and NKAPL, the original developer of Montclaire.

The project involved entities including Gallop Life Spaces LLP, Gallop Montclaire Developers LLP, Ashreyakiran IT Solutions Pvt Ltd and AK Enterprises.

Other related entities named in the records include Montclaire Landmarks LLP, Windson Project LLP and additional lessor entities linked to the 31 leased units.

Namrata Gannu, daughter of Vinod Gannu, says communications copied Konbil Landmark, creating the impression that the original MoU would be honoured.

Vinod Gannu became an 18.33% designated partner in Gallop Montclaire Developers LLP, while a 30.31% stake in Gallop Life Spaces LLP was allegedly promised.

The Gannu family says original property documents for Floor 3A units were handed to Siddesh Gannu as incoming partner, confirmed by a chartered accountant’s message.

Tender, PoA, parking and foreign investment questions

According to the Gannu family, Bank of Maharashtra’s tender required a valid power of attorney from eligible builders or owners.

Vinod Gannu says he never gave any POA, despite being a designated partner in Gallop Montclaire Developers LLP, one of the lessor entities.

The tender allegedly required freehold properties, but units B601 and A702 were reportedly sub-leased through a bhadepatti dated 1 January 2025.

The tender also required 200 car parking spaces and 1,000 two-wheeler spaces, while MahaRERA records allegedly showed only 300 total parking spaces.

AK Enterprises allegedly claimed parking rights not reflected in RERA or Index II documents, while the Bank continued paying more than ₹10 crore in parking charges.

The tender also required disclosure of foreign investment, which the Gannu family claims was not done despite FEMA-linked records and partnership documents.

Carpet area discrepancy and alleged excess payment

The Gannu family alleges a 9,142 square feet carpet area discrepancy across 31 units when lease records are compared with RERA Index II documents.

They claim this represents an 8.36% inflation and could mean ₹41.5 crore in alleged excess payments from public funds.

Bank of Maharashtra reportedly defended the difference by citing a broader “usable carpet area” definition, including internal partitions, columns, bathrooms and pantries.

The Gannu family disputes this, saying the Bank’s own RFP Clause 4.11 closely mirrors the RERA 2016 definition of carpet area.

They argue the 31 units are separately titled properties, each with individual Index II registration, RERA declaration and carpet area certification.

Loans, supplementary deeds and disputed ownership

Supplementary deeds numbered 15875/2025 and 15876/2025 were registered at Haveli 15, Pune, on 10 July 2025.

The Gannu family alleges these post-lease deeds attempted to give the Bank exclusive use of common areas not properly covered earlier.

They also allege loans were taken from Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd on Floor 3A units after the Bank lease was executed.

A board resolution supporting the loan was allegedly backdated before Gallop Life Spaces was incorporated, and named Preeti Mukesh Lalwani as a partner.

The Gannu family also alleges fraudulent loans from Bajaj Finance against other properties, without their knowledge, consent, signatures or KYC contact.

Due diligence, intimidation claims and unanswered questions

Prashant Nilawar, a principal allegedly linked to lessor entities, has been associated in records cited by the family with the Buldhana Cooperative Credit Society matter.

Rajesh Laxmikant Mamidwar, a lease signatory, was referred to in connection with Bombay High Court Nagpur bench Writ Petition No. 632/2014.

The Gannu family says such a background should have been examined during counterparty due diligence for a regulated public sector bank transaction.

They further allege intimidation after November 2025, including denial of documents, bouncers at offices, threats and hostile responses at police stations.

They claim Vinod Gannu was assaulted during a February 2025 meeting at Prashant Nilawar’s Rucha Group office in Pune.

Sanjay Pekam, allegedly named in a counter-complaint, later appeared on video saying his name was used without consent, according to the family.

Bank of Maharashtra’s silence raises public-interest concerns

Bank of Maharashtra was reportedly sent detailed questions on PoA, title search, lender NOC, hypothecation, B601, A702, parking and carpet area discrepancies.

The Bank has not responded to the detailed questionnaire, leaving questions involving RBI, CBI, ED, SFIO and fraud-risk reporting unanswered.

For Sprouts News, the central issue is not merely a private property dispute, but governance around public money and institutional accountability.

Bank of Maharashtra is a public sector institution. Until it answers the documented questions, its ₹1,161 crore silence remains a public matter.

Readers’ Appeal

Readers with documents, evidence, or verified information related to this matter may contact Unmesh Gujarathi, Investigative Journalist and Editor-in-Chief, Sprouts News, on 9322755098. All credible inputs will be reviewed responsibly in the public interest.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.