Bullion. Politics. Banks. Real Estate. Power. Inside the Two-Decade Journey of a Man Who Arrived in Mumbai in 2004 and Now Finds Himself at the Centre of a ₹2,500-Crore Redevelopment Story
08-08-2026Mohit Kamboj Bharatiya’s journey cuts across three worlds that rarely remain separate for long in Mumbai, business, politics and real estate. His latest move is perhaps his most ambitious.
A company described as belonging to the Aspect Global Ventures group has taken control, through the insolvency process, of a massive stalled slum-rehabilitation project at Juhu Gully in Andheri West. The numbers immediately attract attention. The approved resolution-plan consideration is ₹155.02 crore.
Aggregate claims against the consolidated corporate debtors were reported at approximately ₹13,000 crore. The land involved measures approximately 87,778.36 square metres. The rehabilitation scheme involves approximately 37 societies and more than 5,000 slum dwellers.
And the project's saleable development potential has been reported at approximately 5–6 lakh sq ft, translating into an estimated topline of more than ₹2,500 crore at prevailing market prices.
The ₹2,500-crore number is a market estimate rather than a finding of the insolvency tribunal. But even with that qualification, the apparent gulf between the ₹155.02-crore resolution consideration and the eventual potential value of the development makes the transaction worthy of scrutiny.
It has also led to grander descriptions of Bharatiya's emerging position in Mumbai property. Is he becoming the city's new landlord? The available public record does not support such a conclusion.
But the real story may be more interesting than the exaggerated description: a businessman whose roots lie in bullion and jewellery, who subsequently became deeply involved in Mumbai BJP politics and spent years navigating investigations and litigation involving public-sector banks, has now emerged at the centre of a major Mumbai redevelopment opportunity acquired through the insolvency courts.
Mohit Kamboj Bharatiya was born in 1984 in Amritsar, Punjab. His family relocated to Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, when he was around one year old, and he was raised and educated there. His father, Banwarilal Kamboj, was engaged in the gems and jewellery trade, providing the younger Kamboj his entry into the business. He moved to Mumbai in 2004 for higher studies.
KBJ Jewellery was founded in 2005, shortly after his arrival in Mumbai, and developed into what became known as the KBJ Group. Its principal business was bullion and jewellery manufacturing, although interests subsequently expanded into real estate and, according to reporting, ethanol production. By 2012, Kamboj had reached one of the most prominent positions in India's bullion industry, becoming National President of the India Bullion and Jewellers Association, or IBJA.
He remained its president until 2019. Around 2018–19, he also dropped the surname Kamboj in favour of Bharatiya. His stated explanation was that he wanted to shed a surname that signalled caste. The change has a practical significance when examining his history: older bank notices, court and tribunal proceedings and press reports can appear under Mohit Kamboj, Mohit Bharatiya or the alternative spelling Mohit Bhartiya.
The earlier phase of Bharatiya's business career revolves around a cluster of companies associated with KBJ. These entities are particularly relevant because many of them subsequently appear in bank notices, FIRs or other legal records. They include Tenet Exim Pvt Ltd, in relation to which Bharatiya is described in a CBI FIR as chairman and managing director; Bagla Overseas Pvt Ltd, where he was described as managing director; Avyaan Overseas, the gold-jewellery exporter at the centre of a Bank of India matter; Avyan Ornaments, the borrower involved in a Bank of Baroda wilful-defaulter notice; KBJ Developers, named as a corporate guarantor in the Central Bank of India matter; and Rudraksha Motors Pvt Ltd, also named as a corporate guarantor in that matter.
There were overlapping names across some of these corporate vehicles. For instance, Jitendra Kapoor appears as a co-respondent in both the Bank of Baroda notice and the Central Bank of India case. A complete mapping of shareholdings and directorships across the KBJ-era entities and the newer Aspect structure would provide a fuller picture of the transition between the two business phases.
The newer business structure centres around Aspect Global Ventures Pvt Ltd. Aspect describes itself as having been founded in 2005 and today operating across a strikingly wide range of businesses, bullion, real estate, infrastructure, hospitality, sports, venture capital, energy, entertainment and social impact.
It also claims operations extending to the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore and Dubai. Its stated businesses include Aspect Bullion, which remains connected to the group's original bullion-trading roots. Aspect Hospitality is associated with Mumbai restaurants including Brunch & Cake, OPA Kipos, Nom Nom and Estella. Ecomix operates in ready-mix concrete.
There are also Aspect Logistics and Aspect PMC, the latter involved in project-management consultancy. Then there is Shiv Infra Vision Properties Pvt Ltd, the company whose resolution plan secured the Darshan Group assets at Juhu Gully. There is an important qualification to claims about Aspect's overall size. It is not a listed company. There is no comparable publicly disclosed land bank, continuous analyst coverage or readily available set of public audited disclosures of the kind available for India's major listed real-estate developers.
Claims about its geographic reach, scale and market position therefore need to be distinguished from independently established findings.
It would also be inaccurate to describe Aspect simply as Mohit Bharatiya's company without acknowledging the prominent role of his wife, Aksha Kamboj. Aksha Kamboj is the Executive Chairperson of Aspect Global Ventures. Mohit Bharatiya was appointed Group CEO in August 2025, within a structure chaired by her.
Her own profile in the bullion industry is substantial. She became a national vice-president of IBJA and in June 2024 became the first woman to head the association, the same trade body Mohit Bharatiya headed between 2012 and 2019. She is also a co-owner of the Indian Street Premier League franchise Tiigers of Kolkata.
When Mohit Bharatiya's appointment as Group CEO was publicly announced, it was Aksha Kamboj who was quoted welcoming him into that role.
The Juhu Gully transaction is where the story changes scale. Darshan Developers Pvt Ltd, CIN U45200MH2003PTC143256, was admitted into corporate insolvency by the NCLT Mumbai Bench on July 26, 2021, in CP (IB) No. 3106/MB/2019. The situation was considerably larger than one insolvent developer.
On April 10, 2023, the tribunal allowed the insolvency proceedings of 11 Darshan Group entities to be consolidated into a single process. Jayesh Sanghrajka of Incorp Restructuring Services LLP acted as resolution professional. At the centre of the insolvency is the Juhu Gully slum-rehabilitation scheme in Andheri West. The project extends across 87,778.36 square metres.
It affects more than 5,000 slum dwellers spread across approximately 37 societies. Aggregate claims across the consolidated corporate debtors were reported at approximately ₹13,000 crore. The scheme had become extraordinarily complicated because of overlapping rights, regulatory issues and years of stalled construction, making it one of the more complex real-estate insolvency situations in the country.
The resolution plan was submitted by Shiv Infra Vision Properties Pvt Ltd, described in reporting as an Aspect Global Ventures group entity. On January 2, 2025, the Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan with 100 per cent voting. Then, on June 27, 2025, the NCLT approved the resolution plan in IA (IBC)(Plan) No. 35 of 2025.
The consideration under the plan was ₹155.02 crore. The development potential reported subsequently is considerably larger. Trade reporting has estimated 5–6 lakh sq ft of saleable development with a potential topline exceeding ₹2,500 crore. The development-value estimate is not a tribunal valuation and must be understood as a projection based on prevailing market prices.
Nevertheless, it raises an obvious commercial question: how does an insolvency acquisition involving ₹155.02 crore potentially translate into a project worth more than ₹2,500 crore in future sales? It also raises questions about what creditors ultimately recover against approximately ₹13,000 crore of aggregate claims.
The complete distribution waterfall under the approved resolution plan, including recoveries by financial creditors, operational creditors, homebuyers and other stakeholders, would therefore be important in assessing the transaction. So would the financing structure behind the ₹155.02-crore consideration: whether funded through equity, debt or financing secured against the underlying project.
There is another dimension easily lost amid the huge financial numbers. More than 5,000 families have rehabilitation entitlements connected with this project. For them, the relevant figures are not ₹155 crore or ₹2,500 crore. They are the number of homes to be constructed, the precise rehabilitation entitlement, approvals from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, construction schedules and, ultimately, the date on which people actually receive possession. The project's success or failure will therefore have consequences extending far beyond Aspect or its investors.
The proposition that this single acquisition makes Bharatiya Mumbai's biggest landlord does not survive a comparison with the city's established development market.
Take Keystone Realtors.
Three redevelopment projects announced in a single quarter carried more than ₹7,700 crore of revenue potential and approximately 32.5 lakh sq ft. A single Raymond/Ten X Realty redevelopment involving a Mahim West society had reported potential exceeding ₹1,700 crore.
Sunteck Realty's single Andheri East society project carried approximately ₹1,100 crore of potential. Mahindra Lifespace's Lokhandwala project in Andheri West was estimated at approximately ₹950 crore.
Arkade Developers acquired the Filmistan Studios land at Goregaon for approximately ₹183 crore, with estimated gross development value of around ₹3,000 crore. And those are merely individual transactions.
Large listed groups such as Lodha, Oberoi and other major Mumbai developers operate with publicly disclosed land banks, annual pre-sales running into thousands of crores and continuous analyst and investor scrutiny. The wider redevelopment market is itself enormous. Approximately 910 Mumbai housing societies reportedly signed development agreements between 2020 and 2025, unlocking around 327 acres.
Around 1,094 societies were reportedly at some stage of redevelopment. One valuable cluster, therefore, remains one cluster. There is no credible public filing, disclosed land-bank figure or independent report demonstrating that Aspect's property holdings exceed those of Mumbai's largest developers.
Calling Bharatiya the city's largest landowner would consequently go beyond the evidence. Calling Juhu Gully a potentially transformative real-estate acquisition for Aspect would not.
Bharatiya's business history cannot be separated from a series of banking, CBI, ED and police proceedings. But neither can those proceedings be reported without their eventual outcomes. Several of the most significant cases were closed. There is no conviction against Bharatiya in any matter identified in the available research.
In 2019, Bank of Baroda published a newspaper advertisement declaring Bharatiya a wilful defaulterin relation to borrowings by Avyan Ornaments. Jitendra Kapoor was named alongside him. Bharatiya disputed the declaration, saying dues had been paid in his capacity as personal guarantor.
The available record, however, does not establish whether the wilful-defaulter classification was subsequently formally withdrawn. That remains an unresolved point requiring verification.
Also in 2019, the CBI registered an FIR alleging cheating of Bank of India of ₹67.22 crore, arising from the activities of a gold-jewellery exporter and involving Avyaan Overseas/Bagla Overseas over the period 2013–2018. The allegations were detailed.
Avyaan Overseas had allegedly obtained export-credit facilities of around ₹60 crore from Bank of India. Investigators alleged that transactions were not subsequently routed through the lender, bills were raised on sister concerns, funds were diverted towards property purchases in the names of family members and export proceeds were not realised.
The account eventually became a non-performing asset. Investigators also examined a striking collateral-valuation discrepancy. A property in Goa that had earlier been valued at ₹41.43 crore was subsequently assessed at approximately ₹12.51 crore, substantially changing the bank's effective security position.
Bharatiya had served as managing director and had resigned from that position in 2015. But the eventual outcome is as important as the original allegations. The CBI filed a closure report, which was accepted by the competent court.
The Enforcement Directorate had initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, alleging diversion of loan funds towards personal use. No charge sheet was filed.
In January 2026, PMLA Special Judge R.B. Rote accepted the ED's closure report in the Bagla Overseas matter. There is a legal distinction worth preserving. The PMLA proceeding ended after the underlying CBI predicate offence had already been closed and that closure accepted by the competent court.
Money-laundering proceedings require a surviving scheduled or predicate offence. The ED case therefore could not continue once its legal foundation had disappeared. That is different from a court conducting a full trial of the money-laundering allegations and rejecting them on evidence. But the practical result remains that the ED proceeding was closed.
The Central Bank of India/Tenet Exim matter had an even more complicated procedural history. In June 2020, the CBI registered a case on a complaint by Central Bank of India. Tenet Exim Pvt Ltd and its directors were accused of obtaining ₹50 crore in credit facilities using allegedly false documents.
The bank's claimed loss was ₹103.81 crore. A one-time settlement had, however, been reached for ₹94.39 crore in February 2020. The case named Bharatiya as CMD and guarantor. Others named included Jitendra Kapoor, Naresh M. Kapoor, Siddhant R. Bagla and Hitesh Mishra.
KBJ Developers and Rudraksha Motors were named as corporate guarantors. The chartered accountancy firm Lalit and Surendra was also named. Following investigation, the CBI itself filed a closure report.
The agency said its investigation had disclosed no misrepresentation or misstatement and that sufficient evidence to prosecute had not emerged. But the court initially disagreed.
On October 23, 2023, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Jaywant Yadav rejected the CBI's closure report. The magistrate recorded that prima facie offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgeryappeared to be made out. He also considered the investigation incomplete and directed further investigation.
A parallel order recorded another complication. The bank had provided a no-objection after the one-time settlement but had also wanted to challenge the closure report. Its no-objection therefore could not simply be treated as unconditional.
For a time, the matter appeared to be heading back towards investigation. Then the position changed again.
In February 2024, the Sessions Court set aside the magistrate's order rejecting the closure report. By September 2024, the case was closed. The special public prosecutor appearing for the CBI argued that no dishonest intention had been found and that, following the one-time settlement with the bank, the offence of cheating was not attracted.
The linked ED proceeding was subsequently also closed in January 2026, following the disappearance of the predicate offence. The chronology is important. The October 2023 magistrate's order contains perhaps the strongest adverse judicial observations found in the available material concerning Bharatiya.
But that order was itself overturned approximately four months later and the proceeding eventually closed. Reporting one fact without the other would give an incomplete picture.
One feature appearing repeatedly in the closed banking matters is the role of one-time settlements with lenders. Settlement of bank dues is not evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But where public-sector banks are involved, the amount originally advanced, the settlement amount, the actual recovery and any amount ultimately written off remain legitimate questions of public interest.
A complete picture would therefore require establishing the recovery rate for each lender and the aggregate amount, if any, of public-sector bank money written off across the various accounts.
One proceeding identified in the research does not have an established final outcome. In May 2022, Mumbai Police's Economic Offences Wing registered an FIR following a complaint by Indian Overseas Bank. The matter involved approximately ₹52 crore and invoked Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC against Bharatiya and two co-directors.
Bharatiya called the FIR fabricated and politically motivated. The available material does not establish whether that case has resulted in a charge sheet, closure report or remains pending. It therefore cannot safely be described as either closed or continuing without checking the latest official record.
Long before the Juhu Gully transaction, Bharatiya had developed a parallel political career. He joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2013, having already established himself in the bullion business and become IBJA president a year earlier. Reports have credited Ashish Shelar with being instrumental in bringing him into the BJP.
The party fielded him from Dindoshi in the 2014 Maharashtra Assembly election. He lost to Shiv Sena candidate Sunil Prabhu. The decision to give him the ticket attracted comment because he had been selected over long-standing party workers and because his declared assets made him the wealthiest candidate in the field.
He later became President of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha's Mumbai unit in November 2016, remaining in that position until 2019. He subsequently served as a general secretary of the BJP's Mumbai unit.
The years of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government transformed Bharatiya into one of the BJP's more confrontational public voices in Mumbai. They also made him the subject of political attacks. One confrontation involved then NCP minister Nawab Malik.
Following allegations touching his family, Bharatiya filed a ₹100 crore defamation suit against Malik. Another, even more explosive, confrontation involved Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut. At a press conference in 2022, Raut described Bharatiya as a “front man” for Devendra Fadnavis and sought to connect him with the Patra Chawl redevelopment project.
Raut alleged that Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank funds had been used to acquire Patra Chawl land cheaply. Bharatiya publicly denied the allegations at a press conference the same evening. No agency proceeding substantiating those particular allegations against Bharatiya has been identified in the available research.
The Finance Ministry has said UPI could see a small, threshold-based MDR for select merchant transac
Read More
New-age rivals are shaking up India's online food delivery market, forcing Swiggy and Zomato to defe
Read More
A photograph often dismissed online as fake actually captures a historic moment from March 2000, whe
Read More
