Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan: A Detailed Examination of Publicly Documented Criminal Convictions, Tax Proceedings, and Civil Litigation

An extensive review of publicly indexed court records, tribunal orders, and related proceedings reveals a substantial litigation footprint surrounding Roop Kishore Madan (DIN 00656697) and, to a significantly lesser extent, Bela Madan (DIN 00656730). The findings centre on multiple criminal convictions against Roop Kishore Madan arising from cheque-dishonour cases linked to AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited, a 2019 Companies Act conviction, a documented Income-Tax search of the Sanya Group, ongoing Delhi High Court contempt and enforcement matters involving personal undertakings and travel restrictions, and a narrower set of civil and tax proceedings involving Bela Madan.

No reliable public evidence was located of Enforcement Directorate raids, PMLA prosecutions, or CBI chargesheets personally targeting either individual. The record that does exist, however, is concrete, recent in significant parts, and warrants careful analytical scrutiny.

The Centrepiece: Three Section 138 NI Act Convictions Against Roop Kishore Madan (2025–2026)

The most significant publicly verified criminal findings concern three separate prosecutions under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All three arose from the same commercial structure: space-buyer agreements and assured-return arrangements relating to Unit 815 in Landmark Towers, Noida, promoted by AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited. Roop Kishore Madan was arrayed as Managing Director and held vicariously liable.

In Brahama International LLP v. AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (CC NI Act No. 105/2020), the complainant had invested approximately ₹95.96 lakh. Three cheques (₹93,55,487; ₹13,14,832; and ₹7,01,244) were dishonoured. On 30 June 2025 the Saket trial court convicted AIMS Sanya Developers, Roop Kishore Madan, and co-director Sanjay Thukral under Section 138. A ₹2 crore fine/compensation order followed. The appeal (CA No. 309/2025) was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, on 16 March 2026, which expressly affirmed the conviction and the finding of vicarious liability.

Virtually identical facts and outcomes appear in Jiva International LLP v. AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (CC NI Act No. 159/2020) and Sukiran Enterprises LLP v. AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (CC NI Act No. 111/2020). In each case the trial court convicted on 30 June 2025; each appeal (CA Nos. 308/2025 and 307/2025) was dismissed on the same date—16 March 2026. The appellate courts rejected arguments that Roop Kishore Madan could escape liability merely because he had not signed the particular cheques, relying instead on his position as Managing Director and the evidence of his role in the company’s affairs.

Collectively, these three upheld convictions represent a recurring pattern of dishonoured instruments arising from the same project and the same corporate structure. They constitute the strongest adverse criminal record presently available in the public domain against Roop Kishore Madan.

2019 Companies Act Conviction

Separate from the NI Act matters, Roop Kishore Madan was prosecuted by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana, in ROC v. Roop Kishore Madan (CC No. 11971/17) before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts), Tis Hazari. The charge concerned contravention of Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (holding directorships beyond the statutory maximum). On 6 November 2019 the court recorded a conviction under Section 165(6). This is a confirmed criminal conviction for a statutory compliance offence, distinct from the cheque-bounce cases but relevant to any assessment of regulatory exposure.

Income-Tax Search and Subsequent Proceedings

On 17 September 2010 the Income-Tax Department conducted a search and seizure operation under Section 132 covering the Sanya Group of cases. Tribunal records confirm that Roop Kishore Madan’s premises were searched. A diary reflecting property and other transactions was seized; cash of approximately ₹1.30 crore was found; and substantial additional income (recorded in one proceeding as approximately ₹15.92 crore) was surrendered. Multiple assessment years thereafter generated ITAT appeals (including ITA Nos. 2037/Del/2018, 9540/Del/2019, and others), High Court proceedings, and a Supreme Court special-leave petition that was ultimately dismissed on limitation grounds. Certain criminal complaint proceedings under Section 276CC of the Income-Tax Act were also instituted and later disposed of.

These matters establish a documented tax-investigation history. They do not, on the material examined, equate to a final criminal conviction for tax evasion or money-laundering.

Current Delhi High Court Contempt and Enforcement Proceedings

Two parallel contempt matters—Shree Gopal Gupta v. Roop Kishore Madan & Ors. (CONT.CAS(C) 805/2023) and Yogita Gupta v. Roop Kishore Madan & Ors. (CONT.CAS(C) 807/2023)—remain active. On 20 January 2026 Roop Kishore Madan personally appeared before the Delhi High Court. He undertook that approximately ₹97.65 lakh principal plus ₹26.37 lakh interest (in one matter) and approximately ₹98.65 lakh principal plus ₹26.64 lakh interest (in the other) would be paid, and that he would discharge the liability personally if the company failed to do so. He further offered his personal property at A-9/4, Vasant Vihar as security and was directed to deposit his passport, with travel restrictions continuing until the amounts were cleared. Related criminal miscellaneous petitions remained listed into 2026.

These proceedings demonstrate ongoing judicial oversight of financial obligations and the court’s willingness to impose personal restraints.

Additional execution and contempt proceedings arising from an arbitral award in favour of Malook Nagar, together with insolvency-related challenges concerning AIMS Sanya Developers (including NCLAT proceedings in which Roop Kishore Madan appeared as Managing Director and shareholder), further enlarge the civil and quasi-criminal exposure.

Bela Madan: A Substantially Narrower Public Record

Bela Madan’s publicly indexed litigation footprint is markedly thinner. The clearest recent matter is Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. v. Nourish Organic Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (CS DJ No. 211831/2016), decided by the Saket District Court on 27 April 2026. She was arrayed as Defendant No. 4, identified as wife of Roop Madan and resident of A-9/4, Vasant Vihar. The dispute concerned title documents relating to a Vasant Vihar property. She was proceeded against ex parte; the suit was partly decreed with permanent injunction and costs.

She was initially impleaded (together with Roop Kishore Madan) in the 2013 Goa consumer complaint concerning Bullion Infrastructure’s Riverside Green project; the State Commission later deleted the individual directors and proceeded only against the company. Multiple Income-Tax appellate proceedings in her name exist, but no equivalent criminal convictions, NI Act findings, or agency prosecutions matching those recorded against Roop Kishore Madan have been located in the open-source material examined.