Imagine investing ₹2.5 crore in a premium 3,000 sq. ft. commercial space at one of Gurugram’s most talked-about lifestyle destinations. The brochures promise European aesthetics, assured rentals, and a “blue-chip” commercial address. Now imagine discovering that the very same floor you proudly own has also been sold to 24 other investors.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is the reality unfolding at 32nd Avenue (formerly 32nd Milestone), following the arrest of its founder and CEO, Dhruv Dutt Sharma, by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Gurugram Police on February 6, 2026.
What initially appeared to be an isolated investor complaint has now exposed what investigators believe could be one of NCR’s most sophisticated commercial real estate frauds — with alleged siphoning of ₹500 crore or more.
How the Scheme Was Built Behind a “Premium” Facade
According to the EOW’s investigation, the operation was carefully layered, allowing the project to project an image of stability, performance, and exclusivity while quietly multiplying liabilities underneath.
At the heart of the case lies Unit No. 24, a single commercial floor measuring approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Between 2021 and 2023, this same unit was allegedly sold through separate agreements to more than 25 different buyers. Each investor was shown documentation indicating exclusive ownership, with no disclosure of prior or parallel sales.
What made the structure particularly deceptive was the leaseback arrangement. After selling the unit, the developer reportedly leased it back for 30 years under a related entity, Growth Hospitality Private Limited. On paper, this appeared to be a standard commercial lease model offering assured rentals. In practice, it ensured that physical control of the space never left the promoter’s hands, making it nearly impossible for investors to detect overlaps in ownership.
Assured Returns That Silenced Doubts; Until They Didn’t
For months, investors received their promised “assured rentals” on time. These regular payouts created confidence and discouraged scrutiny. Some investors even reinvested or referred others, reassured by the consistency of returns and the project’s high footfall image.
That illusion collapsed in August 2025, when rental payments abruptly stopped.
Developers cited “technical issues”, delayed occupier payments, and accounting problems. But behind the scenes, investor complaints had already begun reaching the EOW. What followed was a trail of irregularities far deeper than delayed rent.
Fabricated Documents and Systemic Defaults
As investigators dug deeper, senior citizen investors and corporate entities alleged that TDS certificates issued to them were fabricated. Several discovered that taxes claimed as deducted on their behalf were never deposited with authorities.
Further scrutiny revealed alleged defaults in GST, PF and ESI payments, despite the company projecting itself as a compliant, professionally run enterprise. These findings significantly escalated the seriousness of the case, transforming it from a civil dispute into a full-fledged economic offence.
Following the Money: Where Did ₹500 Crore Go?
Preliminary questioning by the EOW suggests that a substantial portion of investor funds may have been diverted into personal and non-project assets, rather than being deployed within the commercial ecosystem as promised.
Investigators are currently tracing money trails linked to:
- Luxury villas along the Goa coastline
- Large land acquisitions in Neemrana, Rajasthan
- Aggressive brand-building and promotional campaigns, including collaborations with public figures to reinforce trust and desirability
While these findings are still under investigation, officials believe the scale of diversion points to a long-running, deliberate strategy rather than a business failure.
From One Complaint to Hundreds of Victims
The case reportedly began with a ₹2.5 crore complaint filed by Tram Ventures Pvt Ltd. Since then, the EOW has received information suggesting 500 to 1,000 potential investors may have been affected across different units and structures within the project.
Many investors are now discovering that:
- Their “exclusive” units overlap with other ownership claims
- Some allotted spaces are significantly smaller than promised
- In certain cases, the space shown in agreements does not physically exist as an independent unit
Investor Advisory: Vigilance Is Not Optional
While the legal process will determine guilt, the 32nd Avenue case offers hard lessons for anyone investing in commercial real estate, especially products marketed with assured returns.
The Bottom Line
In a market dazzled by luxury branding, European façades, and influencer-driven trust signals, transparency remains the only real premium.
The 32nd Avenue scandal is a reminder that in real estate, reputation is not a substitute for due diligence. As investors chase yield in commercial assets, the true measure of security lies not in assured returns but in legally sound ownership.
We urge our readers to look beyond glossy promises and verify the foundation of every deal, before the ground shifts beneath it.
.png)