There are two ways to write about a controversial business network.

One is to collect every allegation on the internet, pile the numbers together, sprinkle in words such as fraud, scam, money laundering and shell companies, and call the result an investigation.

The other is harder.

Read the judgments.

Separate the accused from the convicted. Separate the company from the individual. Separate an allegation from an adjudicated finding. Separate a failed insolvency petition from a finding of no liability. Separate a regulatory violation from a criminal conspiracy.

That second approach produces a story about Sanjay Thukral and Magic Info Solutions Private Limited that is both more restrained and, in some respects, more damning.

Because the verified court record already contains enough uncomfortable material without inventing anything.

The record shows Sanjay Thukral, DIN 05235493, as a director and authorised signatory associated with AIMS Sanya Developers, and the 2026 criminal judgments expressly identify him in that capacity.

More importantly, he has not merely been named in cheque cases.

He has been convicted. Repeatedly.

---

Seven Section 138 convictions involving Sanjay Thukral

The most consequential part of this story is the Negotiable Instruments Act litigation.

In three separate cases arising from disputes connected with AIMS Sanya Developers and the Landmark Towers investment arrangements, Sanjay Thukral was convicted along with AIMS Sanya Developers and Roop Kishore Madan.

The three matters were:

AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Sukiran Enterprises LLP — CA 307/2025

AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Jiva International LLP — CA 308/2025

AIMS Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Brahama International LLP — CA 309/2025

The trial convictions were dated 30 June 2025, with sentencing orders dated 16 July 2025. Each case carried a combined fine/compensation figure of ₹2 crore, making ₹6 crore across the three cases—not ₹6 crore against each individual. The convictions were challenged before the Sessions Court.

And then came the appellate verdict.

On 16 March 2026, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeals. In the Jiva matter, the appellate court expressly held that there was no perversity or impropriety in the trial judgment or sentencing order and held that the appellants had been rightly convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It further directed payment of the fine and warned that, in case of non-payment, the trial court was to proceed with execution of the sentence according to law.

The Brahama appeal produced the same result: the appellate court upheld the conviction and sentencing order.

The Sukiran appeal was likewise dismissed on 16 March 2026.

So the first hard fact is unavoidable:

Three criminal cheque-dishonour convictions involving Sanjay Thukral survived the first appellate challenge.

The subsequent legal position must still be reported carefully. Delhi High Court revisions concerning the three convictions were listed in August 2026. A listing is not a final judgment, and the later merits/stay position was not independently verified in the dossier.

That caveat is essential.

But the caveat does not erase the convictions.

---

Then came four more convictions

Here the courtroom record gets even harder to dismiss.

On 12 May 2026, four additional Section 138 cases were decided against AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral:

CT 5585/2020

CT 5581/2020

CT 5578/2020

CT 5584/2020

The judgments identify Sanjay Thukral as authorised signatory/director, accused No. 6, and expressly conclude that AIMS and Sanjay were guilty and were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In CT 5578/2020, for example, the court records a dishonoured cheque of ₹27 lakh and concludes that AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral were guilty.

Thus, on the public judgments located for this investigation, Sanjay Thukral is the convicted accused in seven separate Section 138 proceedings:

3 convictions in June 2025, later affirmed on appeal in March 2026; plus 4 convictions delivered in May 2026.

That is not seven internet rumours.

That is seven court convictions located in the record.

And that is a distinction worth shouting about.

---

The cheque trail is not a footnote—it is the headline

The Section 138 cases concern dishonoured cheques associated with investment-related settlement liabilities.

The appellate judgments record the trial court’s conclusion that legally enforceable liabilities existed and that the statutory presumptions under the NI Act had not been successfully rebutted. In one appeal, the Sessions Court specifically held that the two directors were vicariously liable under Section 141 and affirmed the convictions.

One can spend pages arguing about commercial circumstances, investment structures and contractual disputes.

But the legal result remains:

dishonoured cheques → prosecution → conviction → appeal → convictions upheld.

That is the part that cannot be polished away with corporate jargon.

A boardroom dispute is one thing.

A criminal conviction under Section 138 is another.

Seven of them are harder still.

---

Magic Info Solutions: the company behind the Godrej Summit disputes

Magic Info Solutions was a promoter/entity connected to the Godrej Summit development in Sector 104, Gurugram.

The documentary record shows that Magic applied in 2011 for a group-housing licence over 22.123 acres. Haryana’s Town and Country Planning authority granted Licence No. 102 of 2011. Magic later entered into a development arrangement with Godrej Properties, with subsequent corporate restructuring involving Godrej entities.

That project would go on to generate a surprisingly long trail of litigation.

And this is where the story gets uncomfortable.

The disputes are not identical. The buyers did not all win. Some complaints were dismissed. Some resulted in refunds. Some produced remands.

But there is an unmistakable record of repeated litigation concerning representations, possession, access, refunds, documentation, financing and project obligations.

---

NCDRC: the 24-metre road that became more than a brochure promise

In Nitin Sharma & Anr. v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Case No. 873/2019, the complainants said they were attracted to Godrej Summit after representations that the project was approximately 500 metres from the Dwarka Expressway and connected by a 24-metre-wide road.

They paid ₹75,24,953 toward a flat worth ₹77,68,510, according to the complaint record. They alleged, among other deficiencies, that the project lacked the promised connectivity and that the actual access was through a substantially narrower road.

The defence was not that there had been no representation.

The defence was substantially that the 24-metre road was an external government road, that Magic had taken steps in relation to infrastructure, and that alternative access had been provided.

The Commission rejected that defence on the factual issue before it.

Its finding was stark: even years after possession, the promised 24-metre sector road had not been constructed; flats had been sold while representing the project as connected through that road; and the shortcoming constituted deficiency in service. The NCDRC ordered the opposite parties to refund the entire amount deposited, with 9% annual interest from the respective dates of deposit, within two months.

That was not a criminal conviction.

But it was a judicial finding adverse to the project companies.

And it was not based on a random social-media post.

It came from the national consumer forum.

---

Another NCDRC case: ₹2.06 crore was at stake

In Sunita Malhotra v. Godrej Projects Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Case No. 1011/2019, Magic Info Solutions again appeared as an opposite party.

The complainant sought refund of ₹2,06,72,757 together with 18% interest, after disputing the legality of the possession process and the project’s compliance. The record shows Magic’s defence that construction had been completed, an occupation certificate obtained and possession offered.

The significance is not that every claim automatically succeeded.

The significance is that the same development ecosystem continued to generate serious consumer litigation over promised infrastructure and possession.

A company is perfectly entitled to defend itself.

But when litigation keeps arriving at the same project door, the obvious question for investigators is not whether every complainant was right.

It is:

Why was this level of dispute recurring?

---

And then another ₹59.7 lakh dispute

In Aditya Bhutani & Anr. v. Godrej Projects Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Case No. 1099/2019, the complainants sought refund of ₹59,72,615, besides compensation and litigation costs. Magic Info Solutions was again a named opposite party.

The case record again revolved around the advertised road connection and alleged differences between what purchasers believed they were buying and what infrastructure existed on the ground.

This is not proof of a criminal scheme.

But neither is it sensible to pretend that the Godrej Summit disputes were a single isolated grievance.

The court and tribunal records demonstrate multiple, separate buyer disputes concerning the same project and the same development participants.

---

RERA produced its own stream of disputes

The Haryana real-estate regulatory record adds another layer.

In Ankur Dhanuka v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd., Complaint No. 1757/2018, Magic Info Solutions was a respondent. The authority directed refund after allowing the developer to forfeit 10% of the total sale consideration.

In Prateek Sharma v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Magic, Complaint No. 3299/2023, the order directed refund after a 10% deduction from total sale consideration, together with 11.10% interest. The amount actually paid was ₹1,03,51,200, against total sale consideration of ₹1,08,96,000.

The dossier is careful not to call either matter a fraud award.

That is right.

But there is another RERA case that cuts in the opposite direction.

In Dhiraj Chawla and Sadhna Chawla v. Godrej and Magic, Complaint No. 87/2019, the complaint was dismissed. The alleged defaults and misrepresentation were not proved on that record.

This matters because it demonstrates that the record is not being selectively edited to produce a predetermined anti-Madan/anti-Magic narrative.

Where the company won, it won.

Where the buyer won, the order is reported.

Where a case was remanded, it is reported as a remand.

That is what evidence-based criticism looks like.

---

Then came the banker

One of the more revealing court records is not a consumer case at all.

It is an insolvency petition by South Indian Bank.

In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Magic Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., IB 136(ND)/2023, the bank approached NCLT seeking initiation of CIRP.

The bank’s case, as recorded by NCLT, was that Magic had defaulted in repayment of ₹1,91,91,056.55, plus 9.30% annual interest and 2% penal interest, with the stated date of default being 26 December 2021.

That is approximately ₹1.92 crore before the additional contractual interest components.

But the documentary record becomes more interesting.

The case arose from a home-loan/tripartite structure involving a buyer, the bank and Magic. The bank said it had disbursed ₹2,51,96,750 against the transaction. Magic had undertaken to note the bank’s lien and hand over the registered sale deed.

According to the bank’s case recorded by NCLT, the sale deed was not executed/handed over as required.

There were then emails, meetings, acknowledgments and proposed repayment schedules.

The court record says Magic had proposed a schedule that included:

₹20 lakh in June 2021

₹1 crore in July 2021

₹1 crore in August 2021

₹1 crore in September 2021

plus accrued interest.

Read that carefully.

That is not a social-media accusation.

That is the court recording a bank’s case and the underlying transaction history.

---

But Magic won the insolvency battle—and that matters too

The NCLT eventually dismissed the Section 7 petition.

Why?

Not because the tribunal declared Magic innocent of every allegation in existence.

Not because the court pronounced a clean bill of corporate health.

The NCLT held that the claimed amount could not be treated as “financial debt” within Section 5(8) of the IBC against Magic, because the principal financial debt was owed by the home buyers rather than Magic in the sense required for a Section 7 petition. The application was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

That is a substantive legal victory for Magic in that particular insolvency proceeding.

And it illustrates the central rule of responsible reporting:

A failed Section 7 petition is not a bankruptcy finding; but neither is its dismissal an eraser for every separate contractual dispute.

The NCLT itself says exactly that by focusing on the nature of the debt and the IBC’s statutory definition.

---

The environmental record is another piece of the puzzle

Magic Info Solutions was also involved in proceedings before the National Green Tribunal concerning environmental compliance at the Godrej Summit project.

In Vijay Kumar Chugh v. Magic Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., OA 594/2018, the tribunal dealt with environmental-clearance compliance concerning water, sewage and recycling issues. The documentary record states that an environmental compensation was assessed.

A Haryana State Pollution Control Board communication dated 13 September 2019 recorded an assessed environmental compensation of ₹70,31,250 and directed Magic to deposit that sum within 15 days.

The subsequent NGT record says that the committee had assessed environmental compensation and that the project proponents had paid it, after which the applications were disposed of.

Again, the exact lesson matters:

There was an environmental compliance issue.

Compensation was assessed.

An official communication sought ₹70.31 lakh.

The tribunal record subsequently recorded payment.

That is a compliance episode—not proof of criminal environmental conspiracy.

But it is unquestionably part of the company’s litigation history.

---

The Sanjay Thukral question is harder to evade

The public corporate trail also places Thukral within a wider web of company directorships.

A secondary corporate database using his DIN 05235493 lists associations with 11 companies, including AIMS Sanya Developers, Bullion Infrastructure, Sanya Minerals Mining, Sanya Earth Mining, Sanya Mobile, Horizon Pan Masala Products, Roop Travels, Colombian Software Solutions and others.

That is a potentially important network clue.

But it is not, by itself, a beneficial-ownership conclusion.

The dossier is explicit that secondary corporate snapshots must be checked against current MCA filings, and that historical directorship is not equivalent to current control.

That caveat is crucial.

Because investigative journalism should investigate relationships—not manufacture them.

---

The 2016–2021 disqualification record

Sanjay Thukral also appears in the Delhi High Court litigation concerning director disqualification.

The documented period was 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2021. By the time of the August 2022 batch order, that five-year period had expired. The dossier therefore correctly says this cannot be reported as an ongoing 2026 disqualification without a new order.

This is another example where the record is more nuanced than the loudest headlines.

Yes, there was a historical disqualification period.

No, the reviewed record does not establish a current 2026 disqualification.

Both facts must be printed.

---

What about arrest? ED? CBI? EOW?

This is where some of the internet’s more dramatic claims collapse under scrutiny.

The dossier’s searches did not establish an actual arrest event involving the primary subjects.

Nor did they establish an attributable CBI charge sheet or arrest record against the Madan principals, and no independently established EOW raid, charge-sheet or arrest was located for the primary subjects.

More importantly for Sanjay Thukral, the dossier does not establish a personal money-laundering conviction.

The existence of connected-company proceedings or references to other investigations cannot automatically be converted into a personal ED/PMLA finding against him.

This needs to be emphasised because the internet loves arithmetic without attribution.

A company’s proceeding is not automatically the director’s conviction.

A PMLA attachment concerning a third party does not suddenly become a Thukral money-laundering case.

A cause list is not a conviction.

A complaint is not a conviction.

An allegation is not a conviction.

But here is the sting:

Sanjay Thukral does not need invented allegations to create a serious public-record story. Seven NI convictions already exist.

---

And that changes the editorial question

Once seven Section 138 convictions enter the record, the relevant public-interest question is no longer merely:

“What allegations have been made against Sanjay Thukral?”

It becomes:

“Why has there been such a repeated cycle of cheque-dishonour litigation involving a company for which he acted as authorised signatory/director?”

That question is legitimate.

The answer requires the underlying commercial records:

Who negotiated the settlements?

Who authorised the cheques?

What liabilities were acknowledged?

What assets or project receivables stood behind the promises?

Why did the cheques bounce?

What was the repayment history?

Were court-ordered fines paid?

Were settlements honoured?

Were the underlying investments returned?

Were the same obligations litigated through multiple forums?

Those records—not anonymous posts—would tell the real story.

---

There is another important correction: not every case involving Magic went against it

This deserves emphasis.

The Magic record contains victories.

The South Indian Bank Section 7 insolvency petition was dismissed.

The Dhiraj and Sadhna Chawla RERA complaint was dismissed.

Some other consumer litigation has not resulted in adverse findings.

In Praveen Gupta & Anr. v. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr., the NCDRC rejected the consumer complaint, among other reasons finding that the complainants had not established the consumer status necessary on the facts before the Commission and accepting aspects of the developers’ position.

That is important because it prevents a dishonest article from becoming propaganda.

The documented record is not:

“Every case against Magic succeeded.”

The documented record is:

Magic and persons/entities associated with it have been involved in repeated litigation across criminal, consumer, regulatory, insolvency, banking, environmental and real-estate forums, with materially mixed outcomes.

That is much more defensible.

And, arguably, more worrying.

Because mixed outcomes mean the questions have not been resolved by one sweeping judicial exoneration or one sweeping judicial condemnation.

---

The distinction between Magic and Sanjay is critical

Magic Info Solutions is a corporate entity.

Sanjay Thukral is an individual.

The law does not permit a journalist to erase that distinction.

The NCDRC orders concerning Magic are not automatically convictions of Sanjay.

The NCLT order against Magic is not automatically a judgment against Sanjay.

The NGT environmental order against Magic is not automatically a personal environmental offence.

But the NI Act judgments are different.

Those courts did name and convict Sanjay personally.

The May 2026 judgment expressly identifies him as an authorised signatory/director and concludes that he and the company were guilty under Section 138.

That is the line.

And that line should be respected.

---

What the evidence does NOT establish

A harsh article does not become stronger by making claims the evidence cannot carry.

The reviewed record does not establish that Sanjay Thukral has been convicted of money laundering.

It does not establish a personal ED conviction.

It does not establish a verified Interpol Red Notice.

It does not establish a proven offshore asset network.

It does not establish that every company listed in secondary databases is a Sanjay-controlled shell company.

It does not establish that every consumer complaint was successful.

It does not establish one single consolidated fraud loss figure.

The dossier expressly warns against transforming the collection of historical financial numbers into a supposed aggregate scam amount and says that no defensible group-wide fraud-loss figure was established.

That restraint is not weakness.

It is what allows the criticism that remains to be said to land harder.

---

The real red flag is repetition

One litigation can be an accident.

A second can be a coincidence.

A third demands explanation.

Then a fourth.

Then a fifth.

Then a sixth.

Then a seventh criminal conviction under the same statutory provision involving the same individual.

At that point, the responsible question is not to shout scam without proof.

The responsible question is:

what was happening inside the underlying commercial and payment machinery that produced this repeated litigation?

The court record tells us what happened at the legal end:

cheques were dishonoured and convictions followed.

Consumer forums tell us another part of the story:

buyers fought over representations, access and refunds.

The NCLT record tells us another:

a bank alleged a ₹1.92-crore default, and Magic had acknowledged liability and proposed a repayment schedule, but the Section 7 petition ultimately failed on the legal character of the debt.

The NGT record adds another:

environmental compensation of ₹70.31 lakh was assessed and subsequently recorded as paid.

The RERA record adds still more:

refunds, deductions, interest, remands and dismissals.

That is not a single scandal.

It is a pattern of recurring legal friction.

And patterns deserve investigation.

---

Seven convictions should not take seven more years to clarify

There is a simple public-interest principle here.

A conviction should be followed by an efficient appellate process.

A civil decree should be enforceable.

A regulatory order should be complied with.

A pending RERA appeal should reach a conclusion.

An insolvency dispute should not remain suspended in procedural limbo.

Where the prosecution alleges a serious offence, investigation should finish.

Where the evidence does not support prosecution, the file should close.

Where allegations of criminality are circulating without supporting material, authorities should either substantiate them or publicly establish that no such case exists.

The worst outcome is the permanent fog:

alleged, listed, adjourned, contested, re-listed, circulated online—and never conclusively resolved.

---

What should the authorities investigate next?

The first priority should be the seven NI convictions.

Obtain certified copies of all seven trial judgments, sentencing orders, appellate judgments, execution records and payment/satisfaction documents.

Then answer the most basic questions:

Were the fines and compensation amounts actually paid?

Were any sentences suspended?

What is the exact status of the pending revisions in the three 2025 conviction matters?

Were any further appeals filed?

What happened after the May 2026 convictions?

What amounts have actually been recovered?

The second priority should be Magic Info Solutions’ financial trail around Godrej Summit.

The bank records.

Tripartite agreements.

Escrow records.

Refunds.

Sale-deed registration records.

Mortgage/lien documents.

Project accounts.

RERA disclosures.

The third priority should be the current MCA position.

Who are the current directors?

What are their dates of appointment and cessation?

What charges are registered?

What annual returns and financial statements were filed?

What related-party transactions appear?

What changed after the 2016–2021 disqualification period?

And the fourth is perhaps the most basic:

what exactly happened to every buyer dispute after the last publicly available order?

That is where an investigative journalist should go next.

---

The uncomfortable bottom line

The public record does not establish the sweeping internet allegation that Sanjay Thukral and Magic Info Solutions operated some universally proven, multi-billion-dollar fraud.

There is no judicial basis here for writing that.

But neither does the record support the opposite fantasy that there is nothing to investigate.

There is plenty.

There are seven Section 138 convictions involving Sanjay Thukral on the judgments located for this review.

Three convictions were challenged and then upheld on first appeal in March 2026.

Four additional Section 138 judgments in May 2026 convicted AIMS Sanya Developers and Sanjay Thukral.

Magic Info Solutions has been the respondent in repeated consumer and RERA disputes around Godrej Summit.

NCDRC found deficiency in service concerning the promised 24-metre access road in one case and ordered refund with 9% interest.

A bank pursued Magic before NCLT over a claimed ₹1.919-crore financial default, accompanied by a recorded history of acknowledgement and proposed repayment schedules, although the insolvency petition was ultimately dismissed because the debt did not qualify as financial debt against Magic for Section 7 purposes.

Environmental compensation of ₹70.3125 lakh was assessed by the pollution-control authorities in relation to the Godrej Summit project, and the NGT later recorded payment.

A historical corporate database lists Sanjay Thukral as associated with 11 companies, although that is secondary-source information that requires current MCA verification before being treated as present-day control evidence.

And yet, despite all of that, the public record still does not establish personal money laundering, a verified offshore structure, a universal fraud enterprise or an authenticated personal arrest history.

That is precisely why the story is not finished.

It needs documents, not adjectives.

---

The demand

The authorities should stop allowing years of procedural fog to substitute for investigation.

The Delhi courts should expedite the pending criminal revisions.

The executing courts should establish whether court-ordered amounts have actually been paid.

The Haryana RERA machinery should complete the unresolved appeals and execution matters.

The insolvency forums should bring the outstanding procedural questions to final orders.

The investigating agencies should publicly establish the outcome of any genuine criminal investigation rather than leaving matters suspended in docket limbo.

MCA records should be checked against the actual present corporate structure rather than recycled secondary databases.

And where allegations are not supported by evidence, they should be closed decisively.

Where offences are supported by evidence, prosecution should be equally decisive.

India does not need another viral allegation.

It needs the complete paper trail.

Because after seven criminal convictions involving one individual, repeated consumer disputes against the same corporate ecosystem, a substantial banking dispute, an environmental-compensation episode and continuing regulatory litigation, the public is entitled to ask the most elementary investigative question of all:

What, exactly, happened to the money—and why did so many disputes have to reach a courtroom before answers began to emerge?

---

IMPORTANT LEGAL AND EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER

This article is an opinion and investigative-analysis piece based on identified court, tribunal, regulator and public corporate records, including the supplied Madan/AIMS Sanya dossier and independent internet research. It is not a declaration of criminal guilt beyond the precise convictions identified above.

Sanjay Thukral: the court records reviewed establish seven Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act convictions involving him: three matters in which convictions were upheld on first appeal in March 2026, and four further trial-level convictions dated 12 May 2026. Subsequent appellate/revisional status of some matters requires further verification.

Magic Info Solutions Private Limited: the company has been involved in the documented consumer, RERA, NCLT, NGT and other proceedings described above. Some cases resulted in adverse findings; others were dismissed or otherwise resolved in Magic’s favour. A particular order against a company is not automatically a personal finding against Sanjay Thukral.

Crucially, the records reviewed do not establish a personal conviction of Sanjay Thukral for money laundering, fraud, cheating or conspiracy merely from the existence of these proceedings. Allegations remain allegations unless established by a competent court or legally authoritative proceeding.

Any allegation concerning ED, CBI, EOW, arrest, offshore assets, nominee ownership, shell companies, bank fraud or a consolidated “scam” must be supported by the underlying FIR, complaint, charge-sheet, investigation record, judgment or other primary material. The supplied dossier expressly warns against converting unverified leads, cause-list entries or third-party proceedings into established adverse findings.

The public-interest demand is therefore not trial by media. It is faster investigation, certified documentary disclosure, time-bound trials and appeals, transparent case-status reporting, prompt execution of final orders, and definitive closure of allegations that cannot be proved.