RBI invites bids to sell three Lonavala bungalows near Mumbai for ₹6.65 crore
₹ 6.55 crore and an earnest money deposit (EMD) for submission along with the bids at
₹ 10 lakh. (Picture for representational purposes only)(Mehul R Thakkar/HT)
The properties will be sold on an 'as is, where is' basis, according to the tender document.
The three bungalows are on a freehold land on a plot measuring over 3,800 sq meters.
The last date for inspection of the bungalows is September 8, 2025 and the last date for submission of the bids is September 9, 2025, according to a tender notice issued on August 18, 2025.
The RBI has kept the reserve price for the three bungalows at ₹6.55 crore and an earnest money deposit (EMD) for submission along with the bids at ₹10 lakh.
Also Read: RBI holds repo rate at 5.5% amid Trump tariff pressures; Home loan demand may rise during festive season
According to the tender notice, the prospective buyers will be responsible for clearing all pending taxes with the local authorities.
According to sources, the RBI sold the bungalow to liquidate its assets.
The RBI mentioned in the tender notice that Cushman and Wakefield India, a property consultant, has been appointed by the bank to organise and manage the sale process by sealed offer bidding.
Also Read: Mumbai real estate: Where can you buy a second home close to the financial capital with a ₹50 lakh budget?
All about the Lonavala real estate market
Lonavala, a hill station located 100 km from Mumbai and 60 km from Pune, is one of the most frequented hill stations during the weekends, especially during the monsoon and winter.
Lonavala is primarily a second-home destination and is popular among people wanting to invest in villas, farmhouses, or bungalows. The majority of the second-home buyers in Lonavala are from Mumbai, Pune, and Gujarat. Several Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) have also invested in the area.
Also Read: Everything you need to know about Lonavala's real estate market and Bollywood stars who own second homes there
According to local brokers, the per sq ft rate of villas in Lonavala can go above ₹15,000 per sq ft and 3-4 BHK villas and serviced apartments are available in the upwards range of ₹2 crore and 3 crore. The rental yield is around 10%-15% gross.
Lonavala's Bollywood connect
Bollywood actor Dharmendra owns a 100-acre farmhouse near Pawna Lake, 20 km from Lonavala. Salman Khan also owns a farmhouse in Panvel, 50 km from Lonavala. Sunil Shetty owns a second home in Khandala, about 4 km from Lonavala.
Several other destinations, such as Goa, Alibaug, Igatpuri, and Karjat, also attract a lot of attention from the Bollywood industry for investing in property. For example, Suhana Khan, daughter of Shah Rukh Khan, owns land in Alibaug.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Muted private capex' a cause of concern for India's growth; Q1 FY26 GDP likely to grow at 6.8-7.0% — SBI Research
India's muted private investment or capital expenditure (capex) is expected to become a 'major source of concern' for the nation's sustainable growth, predicted SBI Research in its research report released on Thursday, 21 August 2025. "A major source of concern for sustainable growth is the muted private capex," said SBI Research in its recent report. The research agency also highlighted that the peak elasticity of the government's capex to GDP was at 1.17, which indicated that private investment must 'complement' public investment to steer the economy in a higher sustainable growth path. "Private investors need to hold the baton NOW, going GLO-CALLY competitive as Apostles of Growth 2.0 world over," said the firm in its report. In its report, SBI Research also predicted that the gross domestic product (GDP) for the first quarter (April-June) of the financial year 2025-26 will be between 6.8% and 7.0%. The report also highlighted that the 50 leading indicators of India for the consumption and demand show a slight moderation in the first quarter growth, compared to the January-December quarter growth. 'GDP Growth as per SBI composite leading indicator (CLI) based on monthly data shows a slight downtick in economic activity in Q1,' said the research agency. The research agency also cited the fall in vegetable prices in India which led to the central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cutting its inflation forecast for the 2025-26 fiscal year to 3.1%, compared to their earlier 3.7% expectations. 'The number remains prey to volatility, and excessive and unseasonal rains in some parts of the country are driving up vegetable prices in the past few days,' said the analysts at SBI Research, broadly aligning with the RBI on the nation's retail inflation. India's CPI dropped to a eight-year low in June 2025 over the easing food prices in the nation despite the 'buoyant' core inflation. 'Food inflation is expected to be benign in FY26, with forecast of plentiful monsoon aiding sumptuous sowing pace,' according to the research report. On the backdrop of RBI's guidance, the research agency expects a 25 basis point cut in the benchmark interest rates in the future RBI monetary policy decision. 'We anticipate future policy decisions to be data-driven, with at max ~25bps of additional rate cuts,' they said. SBI also emphasised that India's domestic demand 'stays strong' even though significant global challenges remain underpinning our FY26 GDP forecast of 6.2% (real) and 9% (nominal) GDP growth.
Hans India
11 minutes ago
- Hans India
Jeffrey Sachs slams Trump's India tariffs, calls them ‘stupidest move' in US foreign policy
New Delhi: Prominent US economist Jeffrey Sachs on Thursday strongly criticised President Donald Trump's decision to impose steep punitive tariffs on India, calling it one of the worst blunders in American foreign policy. In an interview on the Breaking Points show with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, Sachs said Trump's tariffs were 'not a strategy, but sabotage.' He warned that the move, instead of giving the US leverage, ended up pushing India closer to other emerging economies under the BRICS grouping. 'These tariffs on India are not a strategy; they're sabotage. It's the stupidest tactical move in US foreign policy,' Sachs said, adding that the duties had 'unified BRICS like never before' and undermined Washington's own long-term interests in Asia. Calling Trump 'the great unifier of the BRICS,' Sachs noted that the 25 per cent tariff penalty quickly strengthened cooperation between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. 'The opposite of what Trump's advisers thought would happen is exactly what happened,' he said. The Columbia University professor did not hold back from criticising Trump's allies either. He labelled South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham as 'the worst senator in the US' and 'a fool.' He also targeted Trump's former trade adviser Peter Navarro, calling him 'probably the most incompetent PhD my former department has ever granted.' According to Sachs, the tariffs caused lasting damage to trust between New Delhi and Washington. 'By going after India, a country the US has been cultivating for years, Trump destroyed trust overnight,' he said. He added that even if the tariffs are eventually withdrawn, India has already learned that 'you cannot trust the United States.' The economist stressed that the tariffs brought 'zero practical impact' in terms of negotiations, but 'completely undermined a strand of US foreign policy built up over decades.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 minutes ago
- First Post
Tariffs become 'sanctions': US switch shows it was never about trade, but politics
By reframing tariffs as sanctions, Washington has blurred the line between trade policy and foreign policy exposing India to the geopolitical fallout of the Ukraine war The Trump White House has begun to describe the additional 25 per cent levy on Indian goods not merely as tariffs but as 'sanctions,' a shift in language that has carried significant political weight. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, addressing reporters in Washington, framed the penalties as part of President Donald Trump's wider effort to press Moscow into ending the Russia-Ukraine war. She referred to the measure as 'sanctions on India,' echoing Trump himself, who had earlier described the added penalty as 'secondary sanctions.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The linguistic change has blurred the traditional distinction between trade tools and foreign policy instruments, sending an unmistakable signal that Washington's move was less about commerce and more about coercive diplomacy. For India, the rebranding of tariffs into sanctions has reopened old wounds, reminding New Delhi of an era when Washington's punitive measures were not merely symbolic but devastating to bilateral relations. From trade tool to political weapon Traditionally, tariffs have been imposed to raise government revenue and protect domestic industries from foreign competition by making imports more expensive. They serve as fiscal tools, allowing governments to shield home markets while discouraging dependence on foreign suppliers. Sanctions, however, operate in a different universe altogether. They are primarily foreign policy and national security measures, designed to compel countries, entities or individuals into changing their behaviour by creating political and economic pain. The White House's decision to recast tariffs as sanctions underscored that the penalties on India were not aimed at balancing trade accounts but at achieving foreign policy goals, particularly in relation to the Ukraine war. By characterising the move as part of the pressure campaign against Russia, the administration tied India's economic fate to a geopolitical conflict in which New Delhi had sought neutrality. India pulled into the Ukraine conflict Leavitt suggested that the penalties were meant to apply 'secondary pressure' on Moscow, indicating that Washington wanted to use India's economic ties with Russia as leverage in its broader peace initiative. Trump himself reportedly told aides and allies that these sanctions were necessary to 'move the dial' with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The press secretary explained that Trump had expended significant political capital to bring the war closer to an end, citing his meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and subsequent discussions with European leaders. According to her, the decision to sanction India was a deliberate step in widening the circle of pressure around Moscow, even if the direct target was a US partner rather than an adversary. Echoes of 1998: A sensitive history For India, the invocation of sanctions revived sensitive memories of May 1998, when Washington had last imposed punitive restrictions after New Delhi's nuclear tests. The sanctions at that time, mandated under the Glenn Amendment to the Arms Export Control Act, included cutting off military sales, suspending foreign assistance, blocking multilateral loans and denying exports of dual-use technologies. The episode created a deep diplomatic chill, forcing India into strategic isolation until the early 2000s. It had then taken a decade of painstaking diplomacy to undo the damage of those sanctions culminating in the landmark nuclear agreement that reset relations. A diplomatic setback The new round of penalties—tariffs plus sanctions—has effectively doubled the cost of Indian exports to the United States, raising the total tax burden to 50 per cent. Trade talks that were scheduled for late August have already been postponed and there appears to be little immediate prospect of resolution. For New Delhi, which has sought to diversify its global partnerships and maintain strategic autonomy, the White House's move has raised both economic concerns and questions of trust. Politics behind the tariffs Trump's decision to label the penalties as sanctions also appeared calculated for domestic political effect. By portraying himself as tough on both Russia and its partners, he has sought to contrast his leadership with that of previous administrations, which he accuses of weakness. Leavitt told reporters that European leaders had rushed to Washington following Trump's recent meeting with Putin, suggesting that they were grateful for his proactive role in seeking peace. The administration has attempted to project the narrative that without Trump in office, the war in Ukraine would not have started, a claim Leavitt repeated in her exchanges with journalists. By tying the tariffs on India to a peace initiative in Europe, the White House reframed a trade dispute as a matter of global security and presidential leadership. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Secondary sanctions and global pressure By calling the tariffs 'secondary sanctions', Trump positioned India alongside countries like China and Turkey, which have also faced pressure for their ties with Russia. The implication was that if India continued its close engagement with Russia, it could expect to bear economic costs imposed by Washington. Such an approach has precedent in US foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iran, where secondary sanctions were used to deter third countries from engaging in trade or financial transactions with Tehran. By extending this model to India, the White House indicated that it was willing to treat even a strategic partner as a pressure point in its broader geopolitical contest. For India, the experience has been a reminder that its relationship with Washington remains subject to political volatility. While New Delhi has expanded defence cooperation, signed major agreements and deepened economic ties with the US, it is also aware that strategic disagreements can quickly escalate into punitive action. The 'sanctions' narrative has reinforced India's determination to maintain independence in foreign policy, especially when it comes to Russia. A return to pragmatism? Whether the US ultimately walks back its sanctions language remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the White House has shifted the conversation from economics to geopolitics, turning a tariff dispute into a political confrontation. For India, this shift has brought back memories of 1998, raised the costs of doing business with its most important export market and complicated its balancing act between Moscow and Washington.
