Public Record vs. Public Perception: The Litigation Trail of Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan, Sanjay Thukral and the Companies They Directed

An exhaustive examination of court judgments, appellate orders, regulatory findings and the limits of what the public record actually proves

The public record surrounding Roop Kishore Madan (DIN 00656697), Bela Madan (DIN 00656730) and Sanjay Thukral (DIN 05235493) is dense, multi-layered and frequently misunderstood. It contains confirmed criminal convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a Companies Act conviction, director-disqualification history, adverse civil decrees, active contempt and enforcement proceedings, company-level RERA and consumer refund orders, disposed or opaque criminal complaints, and a set of media allegations that have not, as of 14 August 2026, crystallised into publicly indexed FIRs, charge-sheets or prosecutions by the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office or anti-corruption agencies.

What follows is a detailed, chronological and analytical reconstruction of that record. It deliberately separates verified judicial findings from pending matters, company-level liability from personal criminal guilt, and media claims from adjudicated fact. The distinction is not academic; it is the difference between what courts have already held and what remains unproven.

The Core of the Criminal Record: Cheque-Dishonour Convictions

The strongest and most recent verified adverse criminal findings concern AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited and two of its directors.

On 30 June 2025, a trial court in three separate NI Act cases (CC NI Act Nos. 111/2020, 159/2020 and 105/2020) convicted AIMS Sanya Developers, Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cases arose from transactions relating to Unit No. 815 in the Landmark Towers commercial project at Plot No. 171-C, Sector 15, Noida, involving space-buyer and assured-return arrangements. Assured returns had stopped after March 2016; three cheques were later issued as part of a proposed settlement. Sanjay Thukral was the signatory on the cheques. The trial court imposed compensation of ₹2 crore in each matter under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed to be paid to the complainants (Sukiran Enterprises LLP, Jiva International LLP and Brahama International LLP).

On 16 March 2026 the Sessions Court dismissed the first appeals (CA Nos. 307/2025, 308/2025 and 309/2025). It found no perversity or impropriety in the trial judgments and upheld the finding of vicarious liability against both directors. The convictions and the ₹2-crore compensation orders therefore stood affirmed.

As of 10 August 2026 those three matters were listed before the Delhi High Court as Criminal Revisions CRL.REV.P.(NI) Nos. 97, 98 and 99 of 2026, together with connected bail applications 650, 651 and 652 of 2026. No final indexed order disposing of the revisions had appeared by the research cut-off of 14 August 2026. The legally accurate description remains: convicted at trial, affirmed on first appeal, and under revisional challenge before the High Court.

Separately, on 12 May 2026 the Saket NI Act court delivered at least four further judgments convicting AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral. These are CT Cases Nos. 5585/2020, 5581/2020, 5578/2020 and 5584/2020 (CNRs DLST020110142020, DLST020110162020, DLST020110122020 and DLST020110132020). Cheque amounts ranged from approximately ₹5.30 lakh to ₹42.14 lakh. In each judgment the operative portion convicted only the company and Sanjay Thukral. Although Roop Kishore Madan appeared in some original complaint arrays, the judgments record that he was not among the accused summoned, tried or convicted. Sentence orders and any appellate status for these four matters were not located in the public indices reviewed; they stand as trial-level convictions pending further certification.

Taken together, Sanjay Thukral faces at least seven identified Section 138 conviction judgments—three affirmed and under High Court revision, four at the trial stage as of May 2026. Roop Kishore Madan shares the three affirmed convictions.

A Section 138 conviction is a conviction for cheque dishonour. It is not, without more, a conviction for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust, for criminal conspiracy, or for any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. That legal distinction is fundamental and repeatedly underscored by the courts themselves.

The Companies Act Conviction

On 6 November 2019 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Acts, Tis Hazari Courts, convicted Roop Kishore Madan in CC No. 11971/2017 under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for contravention of the statutory ceiling on the number of directorships an individual may hold. The prosecution concerned non-compliance with the ceiling and transitional requirements. This is a corporate-regulatory criminal conviction. No indexed sentencing order or appellate judgment altering the result was located.

Pending Criminal Complaints and Earlier Disposed Matters

Several Section 138 complaints remain pending. Preeti Jain v. AIMS Sanya Developers, Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral (CNR DLCT020049612022, Registration 2203/2022) was last shown at the stage of prosecution evidence on 28 February 2026. DJ Sons Hospitality LLP v. Roop Kishore Madan and Bullion Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd. (CNR DLND020683992024, Registration 22/2025) is pending with a future listing on 24 August 2026. An IIFL Home Finance Ltd. complaint under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act against Roop Kishore Madan (CNR HRGR031530822023) shows a “Warrant” stage with a future date of 20 January 2027; the public index does not specify the nature of the process.

Earlier, three 2022 State prosecutions against Roop Kishore Madan under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B (and in one case additional forgery provisions) of the IPC were disposed of on 2 July 2022. One was expressly settled and compounded. The public indices for the other two do not reproduce operative language sufficient to determine whether they ended in discharge, acquittal, compounding or another form of disposal. No conviction should be inferred from the available material.

A 1996 FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) at PS Srinivaspuri was quashed by the Delhi High Court on 14 December 2000. The judgment is an exact-name match but contains no DIN, corporate affiliation or Vasant Vihar address that would conclusively link it to the present director.

An AIMS Sanya-linked FIR (No. 633/2016, PS Vikas Puri) generated a quashing petition (CRL.M.C. 2188/2020) whose final result was not reliably exposed in the reviewed material.

Three Section 276CC Income-tax prosecutions against Roop Kishore Madan for failure to furnish returns were disposed of on 19 January 2021. The accessible status pages do not disclose whether the outcomes were acquittal, compounding, withdrawal or conviction.

Civil, Contempt, Insolvency and Tax Proceedings

AIMS Sanya Developers was admitted into insolvency on 2 January 2019 (IB-1415(ND)/2018). Roop Kishore Madan’s NCLAT appeal was withdrawn in February 2019.

Two Delhi High Court civil-contempt petitions (CONT.CAS(C) 805/2023 and 807/2023) filed by Shree Gopal Gupta and Yogita Gupta remain active. On 20 January 2026 Roop Kishore Madan, appearing as managing director, gave undertakings for payment of substantial sums (approximately ₹97–98 lakh principal plus interest components exceeding ₹26 lakh in each matter). Enforcement submissions continued into July 2026; the matters were listed again for 21 August 2026. No final adjudication of contempt guilt was located.

Arbitral-award enforcement and related contempt litigation involving Malook Nagar also continued to appear in 2026 listings without a final criminal or civil contempt finding against Roop Kishore Madan.

On the tax side, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has both granted Roop Kishore Madan relief (including allowing a write-off of an irrecoverable trade advance in the Rhea Distribution business) and expressly recorded that investigation-wing material did not establish him as an entry operator in the BDR Builders context. Bela Madan’s seven connected ITAT appeals against Section 271(1)(b) penalties were allowed on 28 November 2014; the penalties were quashed after the Tribunal found subsequent compliance.

Company-Level RERA and Consumer Findings

Magic Info Solutions Private Limited, associated in MCA-derived records with Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan, has been the subject of multiple adverse RERA and NCDRC orders in the Godrej Summit and related projects. HRERA and HREAT have restricted forfeiture percentages, directed refunds, and in some instances proceeded against the company ex parte or after striking off its defence for non-appearance. NCDRC orders have similarly directed refunds with interest on findings of deficiency in service. These are significant corporate liabilities. They are not personal criminal convictions of the directors.

An earlier Goa consumer complaint that originally named both Madans and Bullion Infrastructure deleted the individual directors from the party array in 2013; the proceeding continued only against the company.

Director Disqualification and the Civil Injunction Against Bela Madan

Sanjay Thukral and Bela Madan were disqualified as directors for the period 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2021. The Delhi High Court disposed of the related writ petitions in August 2022 after the five-year period had expired, holding the petitioners eligible for reappointment subject to any separate subsequent disqualification.

On 27 April 2026 a District Judge at Saket partly decreed a civil suit against Bela Madan (as defendant no. 4) and others concerning original title documents of property at Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar. The decree was ex parte against her. It directed production of the documents, restrained dealing with them, and awarded costs. It contains no criminal finding of fraud, cheating or forgery.

The Media Allegations and the Absence of ED or CBI Action

A recent Inventiva publication has alleged a real-estate and subvention arrangement involving Magic Info Solutions, Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan, Godrej Properties and Canara Bank, characterising the transactions as an alleged fraud. The public-record review located no official FIR, charge-sheet or judgment independently establishing those allegations. It located no publicly indexed CBI, ED, SFIO or Prevention of Corruption Act proceeding naming any of the three individuals in relation to that scheme.

The absence of such indexed action is a fact of the public record as of 14 August 2026. It is not a certificate that no complaint or preliminary enquiry exists. It does mean that the multi-crore fraud narrative advanced in media remains, on the material examined, an allegation requiring independent corroboration rather than an adjudicated finding.

Person-by-Person Synthesis

Roop Kishore Madan carries three affirmed Section 138 convictions under High Court revisional challenge, a 2019 Companies Act conviction, multiple pending NI Act and related complaints, active civil-contempt and enforcement proceedings, and company-linked RERA and consumer exposure. Several earlier IPC and income-tax prosecutions were disposed of without publicly clear conviction language. Tax appellate forums have also granted him specific relief and rejected an “entry operator” characterisation in one litigated context. No verified corruption, CBI, ED or SFIO prosecution appears in the reviewed indices.

Sanjay Thukral shares the three affirmed Section 138 convictions and has at least four additional trial-level Section 138 convictions from May 2026. He was historically disqualified as a director for five years. No verified personal cheating conviction, corruption case, ED case, CBI case or SFIO prosecution against him was located. Care is required to avoid conflating him with other individuals of the same name who appear in unrelated internet results.

Bela Madan presents a materially different profile. No verified personal criminal conviction or presently established personal FIR was located. Her record consists of historical director disqualification (now expired), an adverse ex-parte civil injunction decree, company-linked RERA and consumer proceedings, and successful challenges to income-tax penalties. Media allegations that include her name remain uncorroborated by official criminal process in the public record examined.

The Analytical Core

The public record demonstrates a substantial and continuing pattern of cheque-dishonour litigation, company-level refund and deficiency findings, and civil enforcement pressure against entities associated with these individuals. That pattern is real, documented and ongoing. What the same record does not demonstrate is a verified multi-crore criminal fraud prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate or the Central Bureau of Investigation, nor any adjudicated finding that converts the Section 138 convictions or the RERA/consumer orders into personal convictions for cheating, criminal conspiracy or corruption.

Any investigative or journalistic treatment that collapses these categories—treating cheque-bounce convictions as fraud convictions, treating company refund orders as personal criminal findings, or treating media allegations as established agency cases—misstates the public record. The reverse error is equally distorting: treating the absence of ED or CBI action as proof that no further scrutiny is warranted. The proper posture is the one the courts themselves adopt—precise, document-based, and careful about the difference between what has been proved and what has only been alleged.

The three most immediate documentary gaps that remain for any serious follow-up are the certified High Court orders in the three 2026 criminal revisions, the certified final orders in the two opaque 2022 IPC prosecutions, and the sentence and appellate records of Sanjay Thukral’s four May 2026 convictions. Until those documents are examined, the public picture, though already extensive, is still incomplete.

That is the state of the verified record as of 14 August 2026.