A real-estate story that refuses to remain a real-estate story

Gurugram’s real-estate boom has generated some of India’s most valuable residential and commercial projects, but it has also generated a parallel universe of disputes involving landowners, developers, banks, investors and homebuyers.

Some disputes concern delayed possession.

Others concern infrastructure.

Some concern refunds.

Some concern dishonoured cheques.

Some concern insolvency.

And some raise a much larger question:

Who was actually financing whom?

That question sits behind an emerging investigation involving Magic Info Solutions Private Limited, Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan, AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited, Godrej Summit in Sector 104, Gurugram, and allegations concerning builder-subvention financing.

The investigation becomes particularly significant because the underlying corporate and judicial record is not empty.

Magic Info Solutions is an identifiable participant in the contractual and development structure of Godrej Summit.

Godrej Properties entered into a development relationship concerning the project.

Consumers subsequently brought repeated proceedings against the project entities.

RERA proceedings resulted in refund and interest directions in specified matters.

Consumer commissions issued findings of deficiency in service in specified cases.

Separately, another Madan-associated real-estate company, AIMS Sanya Developers, has been the subject of insolvency proceedings and multiple Section 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecutions.

Roop Kishore Madan has personally been convicted in three of those cheque-dishonour matters at trial, with the convictions upheld in first appeal in March 2026. Further revisional proceedings are reflected in the current record.

There is also a 2019 Companies Act conviction relating to excessive directorship.

Yet the most serious allegations circulating around the Magic Info/Godrej/Canara Bank story remain a separate evidentiary category.

Inventiva has received allegations that individuals with strong credit profiles were allegedly recruited into property transactions, offered a small financial incentive, shown as purchasers, financed through bank loans, and allegedly supported by developer-funded EMIs before the underlying properties were subsequently dealt with.

If proved through bank statements, loan files, property records and fund-flow analysis, such a structure could raise serious questions.

But it would be irresponsible to declare it a proven fraud, money-laundering operation or hawala network without that evidence.

The central objective of this investigation is therefore simple:

To separate what the courts have established, what corporate records show, what regulators have found, what has been alleged, and what still needs to be proved.

---

Who is Roop Kishore Madan?

Roop Kishore Madan, DIN 00656697, is a long-standing corporate director whose public corporate record extends across a large number of private companies and businesses.

The corporate network associated with his DIN spans multiple sectors, including real estate and infrastructure, hospitality, telecommunications, automobiles, trading, energy, healthcare, imaging, mining and technology.

Among the entities identified in the research material are Magic Info Solutions Private Limited, AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited, AIMS Sanya Realtors Private Limited, Sanya Developers Private Limited, Sanya Infrastructure Private Limited, Sanyog Developers Private Limited, Spirit Promoters Private Limited, Bullion Infrastructure Private Limited, Blossom Promoters Private Limited, Blossom Info Solutions Private Limited, Sanya Holding Private Limited, Sanya Trading Private Limited, Sanya Telecommunications Private Limited, Sanya Mobile Private Limited, Sanya Hospitality Private Limited, Sanya Resorts Private Limited, Sanya Resorts and Hospitality Private Limited, Sanya Automobiles Private Limited, Sanya Energy Private Limited, Sanya GIC Imaging Private Limited, Sanya Hospital and Diagnostics Private Limited, Sanya Earth Mining Private Limited, Sanya Minerals Mining Private Limited, Sanya Desilting LLP, Horizon Info Solutions Private Limited, Udaan Infotech Private Limited, VC Infosoft Private Limited, Vansh Computers Private Limited, Diplomat Impex Private Limited, Hermes Global Holdings Private Limited, Hermes Clean Energy Solutions Private Limited, Colombian Software Solutions Private Limited and Britonna Hotel and Yacht Club Private Limited, among others.

The scale of this network is noteworthy.

But the existence of many companies is not itself evidence of wrongdoing.

A legitimate promoter may establish multiple entities to ring-fence projects, hold land, operate businesses, borrow money, execute joint ventures or manage investments.

The investigative importance of a large corporate network lies elsewhere:

It makes it necessary to identify precisely which entity owned the asset, which entity received the money, which entity borrowed, which entity paid expenses, which entity received refunds, which entity transferred funds and which entity ultimately benefited.

---

Who is Bela Madan?

Bela Madan, DIN 00656730, has longstanding directorship associations with the same wider Sanya/Madan corporate ecosystem.

The records reviewed identify her with entities including Magic Info Solutions, Sanya Hospitality, Sanya Resorts and Hospitality, Sanya Resorts, Sanya GIC Imaging, Sanya Energy, Sanya Automobiles, Sanya Telecommunications, Sanya Holding, Sanya Trading, Sanya Infrastructure, Sanya Developers, Blossom Promoters, AIMS Sanya Developers, AIMS Sanya Realtors, Bullion Infrastructure and Sanya Hospital and Diagnostics, among other companies.

Magic Info’s corporate records currently identify Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan and Vipul Suchdeva as directors. Magic Info is shown as an active unlisted private company incorporated on 21 May 2006, with CIN U70100DL2006PTC149035.

The distinction between director, shareholder, promoter and beneficial owner is important.

Being a director of an entity does not, by itself, establish that the person owns the company.

That is why a proper investigation must go beyond director databases and examine shareholding, beneficial ownership, related-party transactions and financial statements.

---

Magic Info Solutions Private Limited: the company at the centre of the Godrej story

Magic Info Solutions Private Limited is a Delhi-incorporated private company established on 21 May 2006.

Its public corporate classification is associated with real-estate activity, and its corporate record identifies Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan among its directors.

What makes Magic Info particularly important is not simply who its directors are.

It is where the company appears in the Godrej Summit documentation.

The project at Sector 104, Gurugram, involved approximately 22.123 acres, DTCP Licence No. 102 of 2011 and RERA Registration No. 75 of 2017. Public judicial records repeatedly identify Magic Info Solutions in the project structure.

A series of NCDRC judgments explains the contractual history in greater detail.

The records state that Magic Info Solutions applied for the group-housing licence and that Godrej Properties entered into a development agreement with Magic Info Solutions, together with a power of attorney. Godrej Properties later assigned its rights under that arrangement to its subsidiary, Godrej Premium Builders Private Limited, through a deed of substitution dated 27 December 2011. 

In other words, the Godrej connection is not an internet rumour.

It appears in the legal record of the project.

---

Godrej Summit: what was the project?

Godrej Summit was developed in Sector 104, Gurugram.

The project was marketed as a major residential development with premium apartments, landscaped areas and amenities, and with connectivity claims that became a major point of litigation.

The legal record contains repeated references to a proposed 24-metre sectorial road connecting the project to the Dwarka Expressway.

The NCDRC records state that the Haryana authorities’ zoning plan reserved land for such a road and that the project layout contained a condition concerning proportionate payment toward construction of a 24/30-metre major external road when finalised and demanded by the planning aut

The developer-side defence in these cases was that the external road was the responsibility of the state government and that the promoter had provided an additional access through a reven

That distinction—between an external public road and the developer’s responsibility within the project—became one of the most contested features of the Godrej Summit litigation.

---

The 24-metre road controversy

For purchasers, the dispute was much more than a technical planning issue.

Some complainants said they had bought their apartments based on representations about access to the Dwarka Expressway through a 24-metre road.

In some cases, they alleged they had been led to believe that the project was approximately 500 metres from the expressway or would have substantially improved connectivity.

The NCDRC record in Nitin Sharma & Anr. v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr. confirms the development-plan and zoning history concerning the 24-metre road and the Magic Info–Godrej development a

The Pratibha Bansal record similarly sets out the same project

In another Godrej Summit complaint, the NCDRC record described advertising that represented connectivity to the Dwarka Expressway through a 24-metre road, together with various project a

Several of these cases resulted in consumer relief.

That is an important distinction from merely saying that people complained.

---

The consumer litigation was not a single isolated complaint

The Godrej Summit record contains a cluster of consumer and RERA disputes.

They include matters involving purchasers who complained of:

delayed possession,

infrastructure deficiencies,

connectivity problems,

refund disputes,

cancellation,

forfeiture,

amenity issues,

water and sewage concerns,

and the responsibility of Magic Info and Godrej entities.

The research dossier identifies a series of NCDRC matters in which Magic Info Solutions was expressly arrayed as an opposite party, including Ravi Kant Bansal, Nupur Bansal and Pumit/Mohit Chellaramani, among others.

The existence of multiple cases does not mean that every allegation was proved.

But the cumulative litigation record is substantial.

---

When Magic Info could not simply remain in the background

One of the most important legal questions concerned the role of Magic Info itself.

Was it simply a landowner?

Or was it sufficiently involved in the development and transaction structure to bear responsibility?

In Udayan Garg & Anr. v. Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., the NCDRC examined that issue directly.

The Commission considered the agreement, authorised representation and receipt of the purchaser’s money and concluded, in the circumstances of that case, that Magic Info could not avoid liability merely by relying upon its collaborator/landowner status.

The parties were held jointly and severally liable and substantial monetary relief was granted.

This is one of the most important findings in the Magic Info record.

It does not mean Magic Info was automatically liable for every purchaser’s grievance.

It means that, in that adjudicated transaction, the NCDRC regarded Magic Info as an operative participant rather than an entity that could simply stand outside the contractual dispute.

---

The Rajesh Kapil case and the question of resale

One of the more striking Godrej Summit disputes concerns Rajesh Kapil.

The Delhi State Consumer Commission considered a transaction in which the complainant had booked an apartment and paid money, but the property was subsequently found to have been sold to another party.

The Commission ordered refund, interest and compensation after finding deficiency in service.

For an investigative journalist, that record raises an important question:

What was the complete lifecycle of the property?

Booking.

Payment.

Allotment.

Financing.

Cancellation.

Resale.

Mortgage.

Current ownership.

That chain is particularly important because the allegations received by Inventiva concern a model in which a property may allegedly be used as the nominal foundation of a financing transaction and subsequently dealt with for another purchaser.

The Rajesh Kapil judgment does not establish such a financing scheme.

But it demonstrates that property allotment and later sale could become a serious litigation issue in the Magic Info ecosystem.

---

The RERA trail: money and refund orders

The RERA record adds another layer.

In Yogesh Kochhar v. Godrej Premium Builders and Magic Info Solutions, HRERA Complaint No. 5671/2022, the authority directed Magic Info Solutions to refund approximately ₹41.30 lakh, subject to adjustment, with interest at 10.95% per annum.

Other HRERA/HREAT matters identified in the dossier include disputes over forfeiture and execution.

In Ankur Dhanuka v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. and Magic Info Solutions, HRERA initially restricted the promoter’s forfeiture from 20% to 10%, a conclusion subsequently dealt with by the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

These are corporate/project-level regulatory findings.

They should not be converted into statements that Roop Kishore Madan or Bela Madan were personally convicted of RERA fraud.

---

The important distinction: corporate liability versus personal criminal liability

This distinction runs through the entire story.

A company may be ordered to refund money.

A company may be found deficient in service.

A company may enter insolvency.

A director may or may not be personally liable.

A director may face a criminal prosecution in a separate matter.

One cannot simply transfer every company-level finding onto every director.

The investigative record must therefore keep separate columns for:

company findings

and

personal findings.

That is especially important in the Magic Info story.

---

AIMS Sanya Developers: the second side of the corporate network

The second major company in this investigation is AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited.

AIMS Sanya is a real-estate company linked in the public corporate record to Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral.

The company entered insolvency proceedings in January 2019.

The NCLAT record identifies Roop Kishore Madan as a shareholder and Managing Director when he personally challenged the initiation of CIRP.

The insolvency proceeding itself is not a fraud finding.

But the company’s later criminal litigation is much more significant.

---

Landmark Towers, Noida: the assured-return controversy

The most important recent adverse judicial record involving Roop Kishore Madan concerns Landmark Towers, Noida.

The litigation centred on space-buyer arrangements and an Assured Return Plan.

Three separate Section 138/141 NI Act cases came before the courts:

Sukiran Enterprises LLP v. AIMS Sanya Developers

Jiva International LLP v. AIMS Sanya Developers

Brahama International LLP v. AIMS Sanya Developers

All three involved the same corporate defendant and substantially similar business arrangements.

---

Sukiran Enterprises: what the trial court found

The Sukiran judgment dated 30 June 2025 records that the complainant had entered into a Space Buyer Agreement dated 16 March 2011 for Unit No. 815 in Landmark Towers.

The complainant had paid approximately ₹95.96 lakh under an Assured Return Plan.

The developer paid assured returns until approximately March 2016.

The returns subsequently stopped.

Possession was not delivered as contemplated.

A settlement/refund arrangement followed.

Three cheques were issued.

Those cheques were dishonoured repeatedly.

The accused argued that the cheques had been given merely as assurance/security and were not intended for presentation.

The court rejected the defence.

It concluded that the complainant had an enforceable debt and that the statutory presumption attached to the dishonoured cheques had not been rebutted.

---

Roop Kishore Madan’s role in the AIMS Sanya conviction

The Sukiran judgment is significant because the court did not stop at the corporate entity.

It examined the role of Roop Kishore Madan.

The defence argued that he had not personally signed the cheques.

The court considered:

• his position as Managing Director;
• corporate annual reports;
• his signature as director;
• his reported 49% shareholding;
• evidence concerning the management of the company;
• and his status in related proceedings.

The court concluded that he had failed to establish that he was not responsible for the company’s affairs and held him vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The final order convicted:

AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited

Roop Kishore Madan

Sanjay Thukral

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

This is not an allegation.

It is a judicial conviction.

---

The three 2025 convictions

The same broad pattern produced three separate convictions.

In Sukiran Enterprises, the trial court convicted the company and both directors.

In Jiva International, the company and both directors were likewise convicted.

In Brahama International, the same company and directors again faced conviction.

The first appeals were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket.

The appeals were dismissed on 16 March 2026.

The appellate decisions expressly identify AIMS Sanya, Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral as ap

The Jiva appellate judgment states that the appellants were challenging the 30 June 2025 conviction and the 16 July 2025 sentencing order, which imposed a **₹2 crore fine/payment

The Sukiran appellate judgment similarly records the appeal against the trial judgment and sentenci

---

The current legal status must be stated accurately

There is an important qualification.

The research dossier identifies Delhi High Court criminal revisions CRL.REV.P.(NI) Nos. 97, 98 and 99 of 2026, with connected bail applications, as appearing in the official cause list on 10 August 2026.

No final indexed High Court disposal was located in the reviewed material as of the research cut-off.

Therefore, the legally accurate description is:

Trial convictions were recorded; those convictions were affirmed on first appeal on 16 March 2026; further revisional proceedings were pending/listed before the Delhi High Court as of the latest reviewed record.

That qualification is important for publication.

---

Sanjay Thukral: an even broader Section 138 record

The record concerning Sanjay Thukral extends beyond the three Landmark Towers cases.

At least four additional Section 138 trial judgments dated 12 May 2026 were identified involving AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral.

The cases include matters brought by Arun Kumar Gupta and Satyendra Kumar Gupta.

The cheque amounts included approximately ₹42.14 lakh, ₹6.43 lakh, ₹27 lakh and ₹5.30 lakh.

In those four judgments, the final convictions were against AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral.

The available judgments did not convict Roop Kishore Madan in those four matters, notwithstanding his appearance in some original complaint arrays.

This distinction demonstrates why an investigative database must distinguish between:

named

summoned

tried

convicted

and

appeal pending.

---

Roop Kishore Madan’s Companies Act conviction

There is a separate criminal conviction involving Roop Kishore Madan.

In Registrar of Companies v. Roop Kishore Madan, CC No. 11971/2017, the Delhi District Court convicted him under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, relating to contravention of the statutory limit on directorships.

The conviction was recorded on 6 November 2019.

This is a confirmed conviction.

But it is important not to mischaracterise it.

It is a corporate-regulatory offence.

It is not a conviction for fraud, money laundering, corruption or cheating.

---

The Income-Tax search of the Sanya Group

The tax record provides another significant historical event.

A Section 132 Income-Tax search and seizure was conducted on the Sanya Group on 17 September 2010.

The records reviewed by Inventiva connect Roop Kishore Madan to the search and subsequent tax litigation.

There were subsequent proceedings involving assessments, additions, business advances and transactions connected to Roop Kishore Madan and Rhea Distribution Company.

But, once again, the tax record contains both adverse allegations and favourable findings.

In the BDR Builders tax litigation, the appellate record expressly noted the absence of evidence sufficient to establish an unaccounted cash payment to Roop Kishore Madan and rejected the characterisation of him as an entry operator on the material before the tribunal.

That finding should be included in any fair investigation.

---

Bela Madan’s tax record

Bela Madan has her own Income-Tax litigation history.

The research identifies seven ITAT appeals involving penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b).

The ITAT allowed the appeals and quashed the penalties.

Therefore, these matters cannot legitimately be presented as tax-fraud convictions.

---

Bela Madan’s recent civil litigation

A 2026 Delhi civil judgment in Bali Ram Sharma & Others v. Nourish Organic Food Pvt. Ltd. & Others names Bela Madan as Defendant No. 4 in a dispute concerning original property title documents at Vasant Vihar.

The judgment granted injunctive relief concerning the title documents and was adverse to certain defendants, including Bela, who had proceeded ex parte.

But there was no criminal conviction for fraud or forgery in that judgment.

That distinction should be maintained.

---

Historical director disqualification

A Delhi High Court proceeding also records historical director disqualification involving:

Sanjay Thukral — DIN 05235493

and

Bela Madan — DIN 00656730.

The disqualification period was stated as 1 November 2016 through 31 October 2021.

The writ proceedings were disposed of in 2022 after the five-year period expired.

Again, this is corporate-regulatory history.

It is not a criminal fraud conviction.

---

The old Roop Kishore Madan FIR

An old Delhi High Court case titled Roop Kishore Madan v. State concerned FIR No. 1088/1996 under Section 306 IPC.

The High Court quashed the FIR and all resulting proceedings.

The judgment is therefore not a conviction.

More importantly, the available judgment does not contain the DIN or other identifiers necessary to conclusively establish that the accused was the same Roop Kishore Madan associated with the current Sanya corporate network.

The responsible editorial position is therefore to treat it as an exact-name historical match requiring identity verification, not as a confirmed criminal conviction of the present corporate director.

---

The 2022 IPC proceedings

The research also identifies 2022 criminal proceedings involving Roop Kishore Madan under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, including another matter involving Sections 467, 468 and 34.

One case is recorded as settled and compounded.

The available public record is not sufficient to state the final substantive outcome of the other matters.

They should therefore be described as disposed criminal proceedings, not convictions.

---

AIMS Sanya’s insolvency history

AIMS Sanya Developers entered CIRP in January 2019.

The IBBI record confirms the admission of an insolvency application.

Roop Kishore Madan challenged the admission before NCLAT in his capacity as shareholder and Managing Director.

Insolvency is not itself evidence of fraud.

But it is relevant financial history.

When combined with later cheque-dishonour litigation, investor disputes and enforcement proceedings, it becomes an important part of the risk profile of the company.

---

The Shree Gopal Gupta and Yogita Gupta proceedings

The legal record also contains continuing Delhi High Court enforcement/contempt proceedings.

In Shree Gopal Gupta v. Roop Kishore Madan & Others, Roop Kishore Madan personally appeared and made a payment undertaking involving approximately ₹97.65 lakh principal plus ₹26.37 lakh interest.

Security was also recorded in relation to a Vasant Vihar property.

A parallel Yogita Gupta proceeding involved a comparable payment undertaking.

The latest dossier emphasises that these remain enforcement/contempt matters and that no final contempt conviction against Roop Kishore Madan has been located.

---

The corporate network is extensive—but corporate complexity is not proof of criminality

The Madan/Sanya corporate structure includes entities from dramatically different sectors.

Real estate and infrastructure

Magic Info Solutions Private Limited

AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited

AIMS Sanya Realtors Private Limited

Sanya Developers Private Limited

Sanya Infrastructure Private Limited

Sanyog Developers Private Limited

Spirit Promoters Private Limited

Bullion Infrastructure Private Limited

Blossom Promoters Private Limited

Blossom Info Solutions Private Limited

Sanya Holding Private Limited

Hospitality

Sanya Hospitality Private Limited

Sanya Resorts Private Limited

Sanya Resorts and Hospitality Private Limited

Britonna Hotel and Yacht Club Private Limited

Other sectors

Sanya Trading Private Limited

Sanya Telecommunications Private Limited

Sanya Mobile Private Limited

Sanya Automobiles Private Limited

Sanya Energy Private Limited

Sanya GIC Imaging Private Limited

Sanya Hospital and Diagnostics Private Limited

Sanya Earth Mining Private Limited

Sanya Minerals Mining Private Limited

Sanya Desilting LLP

Horizon Info Solutions Private Limited

Udaan Infotech Private Limited

VC Infosoft Private Limited

Vansh Computers Private Limited

Diplomat Impex Private Limited

Hermes Global Holdings Private Limited

Hermes Clean Energy Solutions Private Limited

Colombian Software Solutions Private Limited

and others.

The key question is not why a promoter has many companies.

The key question is:

What did each company actually do?

---

Sanya Hospitality and the Courtyard by Marriott question

Corporate records identify Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan as directors of Sanya Hospitality Private Limited, along with Sandeep Wadhwa. The company was incorporated in January 2007 and is classified in the hotel/short-stay accommodation sector. Public corporate records show it as an active

The material supplied to Inventiva associates Sanya Hospitality with the operation of a Courtyard by Marriott property.

That association should be described carefully.

Operating a Marriott-branded hotel can involve separate legal relationships among the property owner, franchisee, operator and brand.

Accordingly, before publication the precise ownership/management/franchise structure should be established from primary hotel and corporate records.

The important journalistic point is not that hospitality activity proves wrongdoing.

It is that the same corporate ecosystem operates across several sectors and therefore demands entity-by-entity financial analysis.

---

The Chhavi Sharma Das layer

Another useful part of the corporate mapping concerns Chhavi Sharma Das, DIN 03558730.

The corporate research undertaken for Inventiva identified her as a director across several companies associated with the broader Sanya network.

Those companies include Spirit Promoters, Sanya Trading, Sanya Telecommunications, Sanya Mobile, Sanya Holding, Horizon Info Solutions, Roop Travels, Bullion Infrastructure, Blossom Info Solutions and AIMS Sanya Developers, among others.

Her board history intersects with Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan and Sanjay Thukral across different companies.

This does not establish misconduct.

But it demonstrates why director mapping can reveal relationships that are not obvious from a single company’s website or brochure.

---

The alleged builder-subvention scheme

The most serious allegation placed before Inventiva concerns a financing mechanism said to have been used in connection with real-estate transactions.

The allegation can be summarised as follows.

Individuals with good credit profiles are allegedly approached.

They are allegedly offered a relatively small incentive—said to be around 4%–5%.

The alleged developer-side party may arrange or fund the initial amount presented as the purchaser’s contribution.

The money is allegedly transferred to the individual.

The individual allegedly transfers it back to the company through normal banking channels.

A tripartite agreement is then allegedly executed among the individual, developer/landowner and bank.

The bank allegedly sanctions a home loan in the individual’s name.

The developer or an associated person/entity allegedly pays the EMI or pre-EMI.

The property is allegedly later cancelled, transferred or sold to another purchaser.

If the developer subsequently stops paying, the individual remains exposed to the bank loan.

That is a serious allegation.

It is also an allegation that can be tested.

---

Why the alleged down-payment cycle matters

Suppose a borrower is shown as contributing ₹10 lakh.

The bank sees ₹10 lakh coming from the borrower’s account.

But the important forensic question is:

Where did the ₹10 lakh come from before it reached the borrower?

A genuine purchaser may borrow from family, liquidate investments or use savings.

An artificial transaction may produce a different trail:

developer → borrower → developer.

That would not by itself prove criminality.

But a repeated pattern involving multiple apparently unrelated buyers would demand an explanation.

Investigators therefore need to compare:

source account

date of receipt

date of outward payment

amount

counterparty

payment narration

related-party relationship

subsequent accounting treatment

A transaction that appears ordinary in isolation can look very different when repeated dozens of times.

---

The alleged EMI mechanism

The allegations further state that developer-side interests allegedly paid the borrower’s EMI even though the loan remained in the individual’s name.

Again, builder-subvention arrangements do exist legitimately.

The question is not:

“Did the developer pay EMI?”

The question is:

Was the entire arrangement transparent to the lender, genuinely disclosed to the purchaser and consistent with the real economic substance of the transaction?

The Supreme Court’s current NCR subvention investigation has asked exactly these questions in other projects.

The Court’s January 2026 questionnaire specifically seeks information about whether a unit was under a subvention scheme, the parties to the agreement, whether the builder was required to pay EMI/pre-EMI, the duration, the amount paid and whether banks/HFCs initiated proceedings against the borrower or builder after

That is precisely the documentary framework required here.

---

Why builder subvention has become a national regulatory issue

The controversy cannot be viewed in isolation from the Supreme Court’s intervention in the wider NCR market.

The Supreme Court has been examining allegations concerning systematic misuse of builder-subvention arrangements by developers, allegedly in association with banks and financial institutions.

In January 2026, the Court’s record noted that 22 regular cases had been registered by the CBI on 28 July 2025 following its earlier di

The Court’s process has required detailed information about allotments, project brochures, builder-buyer agreements, tripartite/quadripartite subvention agreements, EMI defaults and action taken against builders and ho

This is significant because the alleged mechanism described to Inventiva resembles the architecture of a genuine builder-subvention arrangement.

But one critical distinction must be maintained:

The existence of the Supreme Court/CBI investigation does not establish that Magic Info Solutions, Roop Kishore Madan, Bela Madan, Godrej Properties or Canara Bank are accused in those CBI cases.

No such inference should be made without evidence.

---

The financial incentive behind subvention

The alleged economic logic is easy to understand.

Retail housing finance can, depending on borrower, product, lender and period, be substantially cheaper than some forms of commercial borrowing available to developers.

That creates a potential financing arbitrage.

A developer obtains cheaper financing through the retail home-loan channel.

The borrower provides the credit profile.

The bank provides the capital.

The developer potentially receives the financing benefit.

The crucial question becomes:

Was the person actually buying the home—or was the person’s creditworthiness allegedly being used to raise capital for another economic beneficiary?

---

The borrower can become the weakest party

This is where the alleged scheme becomes particularly troubling from a consumer perspective.

If an individual receives 4–5% for participating in a transaction worth tens of lakhs or crores, that person may be assuming a financial liability dramatically larger than the benefit received.

If the developer pays the EMI for a period, the risk may appear manageable.

If the developer later stops paying, the named borrower can face:

overdue instalments

penalties

credit-score deterioration

recovery notices

litigation

difficulty accessing future credit

and potentially enforcement against the secured property, depending on the circumstances.

The alleged structure therefore potentially transforms an individual’s credit profile into a financial instrument.

---

The property must be followed as carefully as the money

The alleged scheme can be tested by reconstructing the lifecycle of every relevant unit:

booking

→ allotment

→ buyer contribution

→ loan application

→ sanction

→ disbursement

→ EMI payments

→ possession

→ cancellation

→ resale

→ current ownership

→ mortgage status

If a borrower never possessed the property, never independently paid the EMI and ultimately lost the allotment while a new purchaser acquired the same unit, the transaction requires much deeper scrutiny.

That does not automatically prove fraud.

But it would be a major red flag.

---

The Canara Bank question

The allegations supplied to Inventiva specifically refer to Canara Bank.

That makes a bank-level investigation essential if particular loan accounts can be identified.

The appropriate questions are not accusatory.

They are documentary.

How many Godrej Summit loans were sanctioned during the relevant period?

How many were associated with Magic Info Solutions?

How many contained builder-subvention provisions?

What documents were submitted by borrowers?

How was the down-payment independently verified?

Who actually made the EMI payments?

Did any developer or developer-linked account make recurring payments?

Were any properties cancelled or resold?

What happened to the related loans?

Who approved them?

Were transactions concentrated around particular branches or officials?

Were internal audits conducted?

The bank possesses the information required to answer these questions.

---

The Godrej Properties question

The same scrutiny should be applied to Godrej.

The development relationship with Magic Info is documented. (indiankanoon.org

What remains to be established is what the relevant Godrej entities knew about any individual financing structures.

The questions include:

Who executed the tripartite agreements?

Who received the purchaser’s funds?

Were builder-subvention arrangements offered?

Did any Godrej entity promise or pay EMI/pre-EMI?

Was the buyer’s contribution independently sourced?

Did Godrej know about the source of the margin money?

Were cancelled units resold?

Were banks informed?

Did internal compliance or audit identify irregular transactions?

Those are legitimate questions.

They should be answered by the company.

---

The money-laundering allegation

The allegation that money was systematically transferred through multiple Madan-associated companies is the most serious part of the narrative.

But inter-company transfer is not synonymous with money laundering.

A transfer from Company A to Company B could represent:

a loan

an advance

a reimbursement

an investment

a business payment

a related-party transaction

repayment

or something unlawful.

To determine which, investigators must examine the underlying documents and the relevant legal framework.

That is why the correct investigative instruction is:

Follow the money first. Classify the conduct afterward.

---

The hawala allegation

The same caution applies to hawala.

The research reviewed for this investigation did not establish a verified hawala prosecution, adjudication or finding against Roop Kishore Madan or Bela Madan.

It would therefore be irresponsible to state categorically that the Madan network operates a hawala system.

The legitimate investigative question is narrower:

Are there unexplained cash movements, third-party transfers, circular transactions or off-book financial flows that cannot be reconciled with the documented business activities of the entities involved?

That question can be investigated.

---

The tax record must be read in both directions

An investigative article must not select only adverse tax material.

The Sanya Group was searched by the Income-Tax Department.

There were tax disputes.

There were questions concerning transactions.

There were additions and assessments.

But there were also appellate findings that went in Roop Kishore Madan’s favour.

Most notably, the BDR Builders record did not substantiate the theory that he was an entry operator.

Similarly, Bela Madan’s ITAT penalty appeals were allowed.

These facts do not erase the adverse material.

They prevent it from being exaggerated.

---

The criminal record must also be separated by offence

Roop Kishore Madan has confirmed criminal convictions.

But they are not all for the same conduct.

The 2019 conviction relates to Companies Act directorship limits.

The three 2025 convictions concern dishonoured cheques under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Neither category is a conviction for money laundering.

Neither establishes the alleged Godrej/Canara Bank subvention scheme.

The 2022 IPC matters are separate proceedings whose complete outcomes are not all visible in the available public record.

The old Section 306 FIR was quashed and is also an identity-sensitive historical match.

This is why a serious investigative article needs an evidence hierarchy.

---

What the courts have actually established

The strongest established adverse record against Roop Kishore Madan currently includes:

A Companies Act conviction in 2019.

Three Section 138/141 convictions involving AIMS Sanya Developers in 2025.

**Dismissal of the three first appeals

Current/recent High Court revisional proceedings concerning those convictions.

Insolvency litigation involving AIMS Sanya Developers in which he appeared as Managing Director/shareholder.

Multiple tax proceedings and an Income-Tax search involving the Sanya Group.

Continuing enforcement/contempt proceedings involving substantial payment undertakings.

The record against Bela Madan is materially different and should be described as such.

---

What the record does not establish

The reviewed evidence does not establish, as an adjudicated criminal fact, that:

• Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan operated a systematic fraudulent home-loan scheme;
• they recruited borrowers specifically for their credit scores;
• they paid borrowers 4–5% to participate;
• the down-payments were systematically recycled;
• Canara Bank knowingly approved fictitious transactions;
• Godrej Properties knowingly joined a criminal conspiracy;
• properties were systematically resold as part of a fraudulent financing operation;
• funds were systematically laundered through the associated companies;
• the Madans operated a hawala network;
• or the alleged scheme reached a particular monetary value.

Those are allegations requiring additional evidence.

---

Why the allegations still deserve investigation

There is, however, a legitimate reason the allegations cannot simply be waved away.

The alleged model is documentable.

If it happened, it should leave evidence.

A borrower cannot receive money without a banking trail.

A loan cannot be sanctioned without a credit file.

A tripartite agreement cannot be executed without signatures.

A property cannot be transferred without documentation.

An EMI cannot be paid without a banking trail.

A resale leaves a title record.

An inter-company transfer leaves an accounting trail.

A bank loan cannot simply disappear.

That means this is a case where the truth is potentially recoverable through records.

---

The forensic matrix that could resolve the controversy

For every suspected transaction, investigators should create a single file containing:

borrower identity

CIBIL/credit profile

property/unit number

allotment letter

builder-buyer agreement

tripartite agreement

declared down-payment

source of down-payment

loan application

sanction letter

disbursement schedule

bank account of recipient

EMI account

actual EMI payer

possession status

cancellation status

resale status

current title

mortgage status

related-party transfers

company ledger

tax treatment

litigation

Once dozens of such files are assembled, patterns become visible.

---

The critical role of bank statements

A central lesson from financial investigations is that the most important document is often not the agreement.

It is the bank statement.

A contract can say a buyer contributed ₹20 lakh.

The bank statement can reveal whether ₹20 lakh came from:

the buyer’s savings

or:

the developer’s account

or:

a related company

or:

a director

or:

another borrower

or:

an unexplained third party.

That difference can transform the interpretation of the transaction.

---

The critical role of EMI data

The same is true of the EMI.

A loan file may identify the borrower.

The EMI statement identifies who actually paid.

If developer-linked entities repeatedly paid the same borrower’s EMI, that is a fact worth examining.

If the developer’s payments were formally disclosed and fully consistent with an agreed subvention arrangement, the transaction may be legitimate.

If the payments were concealed, circular or inconsistent with the documents submitted to the bank, the issue becomes much more serious.

---

The property registry is the other half of the puzzle

The financing story cannot be established without following the actual property.

Investigators should determine:

who was allotted the property

who paid

who obtained possession

who occupied

who mortgaged

who cancelled

who resold

who ultimately owns

This is particularly important in light of the existing Godrej Summit consumer litigation involving cancellation, resale and purchaser refunds.

---

A possible pattern—or a false alarm?

The investigation could ultimately produce three very different outcomes.

It could establish ordinary and transparent builder-subvention arrangements.

It could reveal isolated irregularities.

Or it could reveal a systematic pattern.

The only responsible approach is to let the documentary evidence determine the conclusion.

---

Why the Godrej connection cannot be ignored

Magic Info’s role in the Godrej project is established.

The development agreement is documented.

The assignment of development rights is documented.

The project-level consumer and RERA litigation is documented.

The question is not whether Magic Info and Godrej were connected.

They were.

The question is whether there was anything improper about the financing arrangements of specific transactions associated with that structure.

That is the question that needs evidence.

---

Why Canara Bank cannot simply be blamed

The same principle applies to Canara Bank.

A bank’s approval of a loan is not proof of collusion.

A bank officer’s processing of a loan is not proof of corruption.

A default does not itself prove fraud.

But a pattern of irregular approvals, undisclosed developer-funded EMIs, circular margin money and unexplained property transfers would be a different matter.

Therefore the strongest journalistic approach is not to accuse bank officers.

It is to ask:

What did the bank know, what did it verify, and what did it do when the arrangement went wrong?

---

The importance of the Supreme Court’s builder-subvention investigation

The broader Supreme Court proceedings provide an unusually relevant comparison.

The Court’s current investigation has looked at:

builder subvention

tripartite agreements

EMI obligations

builder defaults

bank action

homebuyer liabilities

and alleged relationships between financial institutions and developers.

The Court has recorded that the CBI registered 22 regular cases on 28 July 2025 pursuant

It subsequently continued demanding transaction-level information.

That makes the current allegation against any comparable NCR financing structure an issue worthy of documentary examination.

But the Supreme Court investigation should not be turned into guilt by association.

The facts of each project must stand on their own.

---

The BPTP comparison

The broader Supreme Court/CBI investigation has also included matters concerning Gurugram developers such as BPTP.

That establishes the seriousness of the builder-subvention phenomenon in NCR.

It does not establish that Magic Info or Godrej participated in the same criminal conduct.

The difference is crucial.

A journalist should never use one developer’s FIR as proof of another developer’s guilt.

---

A company network is not automatically a shell-company network

The allegations supplied to Inventiva refer to a “large network” and “shell companies”.

That terminology should be used carefully.

A shell company is not simply a company with little visible activity or a company sharing directors with another company.

To establish that an entity was used as a shell or conduit, investigators would need to examine:

employees

offices

revenues

bank transactions

assets

business contracts

GST

tax returns

financial statements

related-party transactions

beneficial ownership

and actual commercial activity.

The proper investigative question is not:

“How many companies exist?”

It is:

“What function did each company actually perform?”

---

The corporate map should become a money map

The next stage of investigation should connect:

Roop Kishore Madan

with

Bela Madan

with

Sanjay Thukral

with

Chhavi Sharma Das

and other recurring directors.

Then connect those individuals to:

companies

bankers

properties

projects

loans

RERA records

litigation

tax records

charges

related-party transactions

and finally:

money flows.

That is when a corporate network becomes an investigative map.

---

The biggest unanswered questions for Magic Info Solutions

Magic Info should explain:

How many Godrej Summit units were associated with the company?

What was the exact contractual role of Magic Info?

How much purchaser money did Magic Info receive?

How much was refunded?

How many allotments were cancelled?

How many units were resold?

Were bank loans attached to those units?

Were any buyers enrolled into subvention schemes?

Did Magic Info ever fund purchaser down-payments?

Did it ever pay purchaser EMIs?

Did it ever transfer funds to associated companies after receiving purchaser/loan money?

These are legitimate questions.

---

The biggest unanswered questions for Godrej Properties

Godrej should explain:

What was the exact relationship with Magic Info?

Which entity sold the apartments?

Which entity received buyer payments?

Which entity executed the buyer agreements?

What subvention products were offered?

Which banks participated?

Were any EMIs paid by developer-side entities?

How were buyer contributions verified?

Were any financed units cancelled/resold?

Were banks notified?

Were internal investigations conducted into irregular transactions?

---

The biggest unanswered questions for Canara Bank

Canara Bank should explain:

How many loans were sanctioned for the relevant project?

How many involved Magic Info?

How many were subvention arrangements?

How was margin money verified?

Did any developer-related account pay EMIs?

How many accounts became overdue?

How were such accounts classified?

What recovery action followed developer default?

Were mortgages enforced?

Were any internal investigations undertaken?

Were any officers found to have deviated from policy?

---

The question that matters most to homebuyers

A property can be worth ₹1 crore.

A bank loan can be ₹80 lakh.

A nominal borrower can receive a 4–5% incentive.

But if that borrower never economically controlled the property and the developer stops servicing the loan, the individual may be left exposed to the entire financial liability.

This is why subvention transactions are not merely a developer issue.

They are also a banking risk and consumer-protection issue.

---

The record against Roop Kishore Madan is substantial—but should not be exaggerated

There is enough in the public record to say that Roop Kishore Madan has faced substantial adverse litigation.

There are three recent Section 138 convictions.

There is a Companies Act conviction.

There are tax proceedings.

There is insolvency litigation.

There are current enforcement/contempt proceedings.

That is significant.

But it does not permit a journalist to leap directly to:

money laundering

or

hawala

or

bank fraud

unless the evidence establishes those offences.

The same principle applies to Bela Madan.

Her record is materially different.

---

The record against Bela Madan should be reported separately

The evidence reviewed establishes:

corporate directorships

historical director disqualification

tax appeals

civil/property litigation

company-linked consumer/RERA proceedings

but no verified personal criminal conviction located through this investigation.

The article should therefore not place her personal record in the same criminal category as Roop Kishore Madan without evidence.

---

What the investigation establishes about Magic Info

The strongest defensible conclusion regarding Magic Info is this:

Magic Info Solutions was a material participant in the legal and development architecture of Godrej Summit.

It entered into a development agreement with Godrej Properties.

It was identified as a project licensee/landowner-related entity.

It became a respondent in numerous consumer/RERA disputes.

Specified cases resulted in refund, interest and deficiency-of-service findings against the corporate respondents.

Courts in certain cases treated Magic Info as sufficiently involved to impose liability.

Those are document-based conclusions.

---

What remains the central unresolved allegation

The most important unresolved allegation is not about the 24-metre road.

It is about financing.

The allegation is essentially:

Were retail home loans allegedly used as a source of cheaper capital for developer-side interests while ordinary individuals were placed in the position of nominal borrowers?

If the answer is no, the bank statements and loan files should demonstrate that.

If the answer is yes, the same records should reveal it.

---

The investigative trail now has a clear direction

The first layer is already available:

corporate records

court judgments

RERA orders

consumer judgments

insolvency records

tax litigation

criminal judgments

company directorships.

The second layer must now be obtained:

bank records

loan files

tripartite agreements

customer ledgers

EMI histories

property registry records

inter-company bank statements

related-party accounting

beneficial ownership records.

Only then can the most serious allegations be elevated from allegation to finding.

---

The line between a commercial dispute and a financial scheme

The difference is simple.

If a developer sells a flat, accepts money, fails to deliver and is ordered to refund the money, that is a serious property dispute.

If a developer allegedly recruits an individual because of that person’s credit profile, finances the individual’s contribution, obtains a bank loan, services the loan and then allegedly controls the property for its own benefit, that raises entirely different questions.

The second scenario could potentially implicate banking, corporate, tax and criminal law.

But the second scenario must be proved.

---

A document-driven investigation demands a document-driven conclusion

The evidence does not justify saying:

“Roop Kishore Madan and Bela Madan have been convicted of running a multi-crore money-laundering racket with Godrej and Canara Bank.”

That proposition has not been established by the evidence reviewed.

Nor does the evidence justify saying:

“Nothing happened.”

The record is too substantial for that.

The evidence establishes a complicated corporate and litigation history.

It establishes direct Magic Info involvement in Godrej Summit.

It establishes extensive consumer and RERA proceedings around the project.

It establishes three Section 138 convictions involving AIMS Sanya Developers, Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral.

It establishes a separate Companies Act conviction against Roop.

It establishes insolvency proceedings.

It establishes tax investigations and litigation.

It establishes continuing enforcement proceedings.

And it establishes that the broader NCR builder-subvention phenomenon is serious enough to have resulted in a Supreme Court-monitored CBI investigation and 22 regist

---

The final question: follow the money

There is ultimately only one way to resolve the most serious allegations.

Follow the money.

Follow the borrower.

Follow the down-payment.

Follow the loan.

Follow the EMI.

Follow the property.

Follow the cancellation.

Follow the resale.

Follow the related company.

Follow the bank account.

Follow the ledger.

Follow the ultimate beneficiary.

If the transactions were genuine, the trail should ultimately show genuine transactions.

If they were artificial, the circularity should appear.

If the financing was properly disclosed, the documents should establish it.

If it was not, the bank files should reveal the discrepancy.

If funds were legitimately transferred between group companies, their accounting and tax treatment should explain them.

If they were not legitimate, the same records may reveal something far more serious.

---

The unanswered question hanging over Godrej Summit

The most important question emerging from the investigation is therefore not:

Who is Roop Kishore Madan?

Not:

How many companies does the Madan network have?

Not even:

How many consumer complaints have been filed?

The fundamental question is:

Who was the real economic beneficiary of the financing transactions associated with the properties?

Was it the individual borrower?

Was it the developer?

Was it a landowner?

Was it an associated company?

Was it another purchaser?

Or did the economic benefit move through a chain of entities?

The answer lies in the records.

---

Inventiva’s investigation: where the evidence stands today

The available evidence supports a strong and highly documentable investigation into Magic Info Solutions and the wider Sanya/Madan corporate ecosystem.

The public record establishes the Magic Info–Godrej develo

It establishes repeated consumer and RERA disputes involving Magic Info and Godrej Summit.

It establishes specific refund and deficiency findings against corporate respondents.

It establishes AIMS Sanya Developers’ insolvency history.

It establishes Roop Kishore Madan’s 2019 Companies Act conviction.

It establishes three 2025 Section 138/141 convictions involving AIMS Sanya Developers, Roop Kishore Madan and Sanjay Thukral, followed by first appellate dismis

It establishes additional 2026 Section 138 convictions involving AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral.

It establishes a historical Income-Tax search involving the Sanya Group and subsequent tax litigation.

It establishes current enforcement/contempt proceedings involving Roop Kishore Madan.

It also establishes that the broader NCR builder-subvention controversy is being examined at the highest judicial level, with the CBI having registered 22 regular cases pursuant to the Supreme

---

What must still be established before anyone can call the alleged financing scheme a criminal fraud

The following questions remain central:

Were people actually recruited because of their CIBIL scores?

Was a 4–5% incentive offered?

Who funded the alleged down-payments?

Were those funds transferred back to developer-side accounts?

How many such transactions occurred?

Who signed the tripartite agreements?

Which banks financed the transactions?

Did the lenders know who was paying the EMI?

Did developer-linked accounts pay the EMI?

How many properties were actually possessed by the original borrowers?

How many were subsequently cancelled or resold?

Were the lenders informed?

Where did the disbursement proceeds ultimately go?

Did money subsequently move through associated companies?

If it did, what was the legal and commercial purpose of those transfers?

Did any bank official knowingly facilitate an irregular arrangement?

Did any Godrej employee or entity know of an arrangement inconsistent with the financing documents?

Those are the questions that can convert this story from allegation to evidence.

---

The right of reply

Inventiva should seek detailed responses from:

Roop Kishore Madan

Bela Madan

Magic Info Solutions Private Limited

AIMS Sanya Developers Private Limited

Godrej Properties Limited

Canara Bank

The questions should cover the corporate relationships, Godrej Summit transactions, subvention arrangements, funding of purchaser contributions, EMI payments, cancellations/resales, bank financing, internal audits and alleged inter-company fund movements.

Any substantive response should be published fairly and prominently.