Surat Court Rejects Bail of Kanhaiya Contractor in Fraud Case

Surat : The Surat district court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by Kanhaiyalal Lalbhai Contractor aka Kanhaiyabhai Contractor, the executive president of the Surat District Cricket Association (SDCA), in the Rs. 2.92 crore mortgage loan case by using forged power of attorney on Tuesday. 

Additional district and sessions judge HM Vyas rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Kanhaiya Contractor following the strong arguments by public prosecutor Nayan Sukhadwala. 

The complaint was lodged by Nayanaben Hemant Contractor, sister-in-law of Kanhaiyalal Contractor, with the Economic Offences Cell (Eco Cell) of Surat Police. According to Nayanaben, Contractor created a forged power of attorney that falsely represented the signatures of the partners of the family-owned firm, Kanhaiya Construction Company. The partners, including Nayanaben, her husband Hemant Contractor, and Dahiben Contractor, were not present in India on the date the document was notarized on October 30, 2009.

The complaint states that the power of attorney was fabricated with the intent of mortgaging the land and using the proceeds for personal gain. Nayanaben claims that neither she nor her husband authorized the use of their signatures for the loan. She and her husband had gone abroad to Dubai and London when Kanhaiyabhai Contractor used the forged power of attorney to get mortgage loan. 

Bajaj Finance Private Limited, which provided the mortgage, has since initiated proceedings to repossess the property under the SARFAESI Act via the Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL). The property in question, located at RDS House, has an estimated market value of Rs 3 crore, while the mortgage loan was taken out for Rs 2.92 crore.

The legal trouble for Contractor escalated as he allegedly defaulted on the loan, with Rs 67 lakh still unpaid. Due to the outstanding amount, Bajaj Finance moved to begin repossession proceedings. The Eco Cell has registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Contractor, invoking several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine).

Nayanaben’s allegations include that Kanhaiyalal Contractor falsely represented the authority to manage the firm’s assets, obtaining a mortgage by deceiving the finance company. She claims that the entire transaction was carried out without the knowledge of the other partners.

Sources reveal that Contractor handles substantial funds as the executive president of SDCA, which manages the Lalbhai Contractor Cricket Stadium on Surat-Dumas Road in Piplod. The allegations have cast a shadow on Contractor’s position, with many questioning the integrity of his role within the cricket association.